Friday, June 28, 2013

Adam and Eve Stuff

With the creation of Adam the word clay does not reference animal, hominid, ape, or anything other than what is references to a second grader making a pot in art class. Clay is an inert object God used to miraculously form Adam's body with all its parts. God also created Adam's soul. The label clay cannot be rationally transferred over in a conceptual figure to label a hominid. And besides in such critical matters as first origins God and the sacred authors would presumably only get conceptual with their words where it is necessary. Saint Augustine taught that prophetic diction delights in mingling figurative and real language. But remember there is a rationale behind the use of language.  It is not as if God and the sacred authors are using conceptual figures for the delight of it like Shakespeare!!!

All figures are a type of lexical concept. The intellect understands a rational association between two objects (or concepts) and the will desires to replace one with the other for practical purposes of communication or to spice things up. In a figurative association, the label of the one object is transferred over as the new label for the other object. Even the labels of associated concepts can get switched.  One relation represents another relation. For example God and the sacred author have to use the object breath and concept breathing to represent Adam's soul and God acting to create Adam's soul. These conceptual figures resolve to an unapparent action and object. You cannot see God creating a soul or the soul itself; thus it has to be explained using figurative concepts. Breath relates the soul and God breathing relates God creating. Together breathing and breath relate and reference the unique type of soul God gave Adam. Adam has the type of soul that is intimately related to God.  There is a singular connection between God and the soul of Adam as well as his body.  Adam's type of soul has a quality conveyed straight from God like a stream of breath running from the mouth of one person to another person.  It is like a father and son type closeness or a husband and wife type closeness, or a sibling closeness.  All these get close enough to breath on each other.    

If you were there to see Adam's creation you would not see the creation of his soul. But you would certainly see his body coming into existence from some real clay. Clay is not a conceptual figure in this context.  You would also see that Adam begins to move on his own against the pull of all other objects. He came alive. So this Sacred Scripture does record a biological origin and the spiritual authority of the Church does have a right to interpret this matter of biological origin and correct scientific/philosophic speculations which do not proceed from the proper authority.

In context to first origins their is no reasonable association between the object clay and and the object hominid. The label clay is not transferred over to label a man-like animal. This absurd interpretation comes from a modern world-view of origins. The formation of Adam's body is not much of a mystery. God shaped it using some clay located on planet Earth and perhaps God was even elegant and custom in this His special work. God is after all the Genius behind this whole operation.

The real question is just when and where did Adam first appear. That is the question that needs a resolution. Where and when does Adam's appearance fit in with all that we have discovered, for example the fossils.  Fossils are facts of the Universal Movie. So where does Adam and Eve fit into the Universal Movie in relation to the fossils?  Catholics should seek a fresh and creative solution to this problem. An answer found using faith and a little critical thinking as well as creativity could put polygenism to rest forever. I will be blunt. I do not hold to polygenism. It is a ridiculous notion. All human persons now present descended from Adam and Eve. Eve's body came from Adam's body. And Adam's body came from the miracle God wrought and had recorded in Genesis.

And even though I find the biological theory of evolution very rational and think the concept can be used to speculate a small fraction of the Earth's history (recall I think Earth transformed from a star making it at least tens of billions of years old) I am not afraid of it in the least. It is a concept after all. Its application to the past is speculative. Speculations are not critical in context to first origins. Concepts were not there in the past when Adam's body appeared and began moving on its own. Nor were computer models remapping gene flow.  A problem is that the idea of evolution and now genomics have been taken too far.  

Prior to their sin Adam and Eve's bodies were immaculate and superior to our bodies. When you read some of Blessed Anne Catherine's writings it is clear that their bodies were glorified. They are unlike anything conceivable in relation to present man and what may be imagined from the fossils. And this is a mistake of the masses. They think that they can explain Adam and Eve without even taking into account that they and all their children, in seed, changed after the Fall. 

Adam and Eve were different prior to their sin. They were perfect, glorious, immaculate, innocent, immortal.  After their sin they still had the same heart, brains, bones and organs, the best DNA codes of all living objects, etc. and yet still they substantially changed. They received some harmful mutations in their bodies. They became more like hominids and less like glorious children of God. The DNA of the cells which produce their gametes changed (germline mutations). These mutations were passed on to their children!!!  By the end of their lives their DNA sequences would have changed even more due to their fallen condition and interaction with the fallen Earth. Genomes change in the course of a life! 

So it appears as if our first two parents bodies were never innocent, immaculate, glorious and immortal. This is one of the reasons why so many seem confused over this matter. DNA sequencing technology cannot account for the Fall of Adam and Eve.  Evolution and genomics cannot explain what happened.  Theories, computers, codes and math equations do not have faith and reason. The scientists who propose first origins do not allow themselves to be guided and corrected by Divine Revelation in their speculations of biological origins.  They convert assumptions into facts and concepts into objects.         

It is good to read some of Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich's prophetic descriptions. In these it is clear that Adam and Eve's bodies did not evolve from a hominid:

I saw Adam created, not in Paradise, but in the region in which Jerusalem was subsequently situated. I saw him come forth glittering and white from a mound of yellow earth, as if out of a mold. . . . He was, as it were, born of the virgin earth. God blessed the earth, and it became his mother. He did not instantly step forth from the earth. Some time elapsed before his appearance. He lay in the hillock on his left side, his arm thrown over his head, a light vapor covering him as with a veil. . .
God called him. The hillock opened, and Adam stepped gently forth. 
Although his person was more like to flesh than to spirit, yet he was dazzlingly white. . . 
Near the tree by the water arose a hill [this is in Paradise]. On it I saw Adam reclining on his left side, his left hand under his cheek. God sent a deep sleep on him and he was rapt in vision. Then from his right side, from the same place in which the side of Jesus was opened by the lance, God drew Eve. I saw her small and delicate. But she quickly increased in size until full-grown. She was exquisitely beautiful.
Eve arose before Adam, and he gave her his hand. They were like two unspeakably noble and beautiful children, perfectly luminous, and clothed with beams of light as with a veil.
From Adams mouth I saw issuing a broad stream of glittering light, and upon his forehead was an expression of great majesty. Around his mouth played a sunbeam, but there was none around Eves. I saw Adams heart very much the same as in men of the present day, but his breast was surrounded by rays of light.  In the middle of his heart, I saw a sparkling halo of glory. In it was a tiny figure as if holding something in its hand. I think it symbolized the Third Person of the Godhead. From the hands and feet of Adam and Eve, shot rays of light. Their hair fell in five glittering tresses, two from the temples, two behind the ears, and one from the back of the head.
The glittering beams on Adams head denoted his abundant fruitfulness, his glory, his connection with other radiations. And all this shining beauty is restored to glorified souls and bodies. Our hair is the ruined, the extinct glory; and as is this hair of ours to rays of light, so is our present flesh to that of Adam before the Fall. The sunbeams around Adams mouth bore reference to a holy posterity from God,

The last time I saw a picture of the Neanderthal or one of these other hominids they did not appear unspeakably noble and beautiful to me. 

I would really love to hear what the Jews, Christians, and devout Muslims of the Middle East have to say about all these variations of polygenism proceeding from the West. I assume that they would laugh at them.

Another Planet Muff-Up on io9

io9 is a website with the motto:  we come from the future.  Lol!

They love planets but do not yet understand what most people may take for granted in the future:

A planet is a star and a star is a planet.  

Today they post this beautiful picture of a star cluster:

And the title of the little feature is called:

Planets can form and survive in insanely dense star clusters

You think?  Planets are old stars.  So of course a planet can form and survive in insanely dense star clusters.   Most of the stars in the cluster are transitioning to planets.  The planets they found in NGC-6811 are older stars which were in existence prior to the emergence of the new stars.  They either migrated into the cluster or were present in that region when the new stars burst forth.  And I am sure that there are many old stars (planets) packed into this region since matter, i.e. the network of atoms is very old:  older than 13.8 billion  years.  

Friday, June 21, 2013

Adam in Sacred Scripture

A few of the less well known Sacred Scriptures about Adam:

From the Wisdom of Solomon

{10:1} This is he, who was formed first by God, the father of the world, who was alone when created; she preserved him,
{10:2} and led him out of his offense, and gave him the power to maintain all things.

From Sirach/Ecclesiasticus

{33:10} Some of them, God exalted and magnified. And some of them, he set amid the ordinary days. And all men are from the ground, and from the Earth, from which Adam was created.
{40:1} A great occupation was created for all men, and a heavy yoke is upon the sons of Adam, from the day of their departure from their mother’s womb, even until the day of their burial into the mother of all:

{49:19} Shem and Seth obtained glory among men. And above every soul, at the very beginning, was Adam.

From the Prophecy of Isaiah

{43:27} Your first father sinned, and your interpreters have betrayed me.

From the Prophecy of Jeremiah

{32:19} You are great in counsel and incomprehensible in thought. Your eyes are open upon all the ways of the sons of Adam, so that you may repay each one according to his ways and according to the fruit of his intentions. 

From the Prophecy of Hosea

{6:6} For I desired mercy and not sacrifice, and knowledge of God more than holocausts.
{6:7} But they, like Adam, have transgressed the covenant; in this, they have been dishonest with me.

From Job

{31:33} If I have covered as Adam my transgressions, To hide in my bosom mine iniquity,

From Romans

{5:12} Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into this world, and through sin, death; so also death was transferred to all men, to all who have sinned.
{5:13} For even before the law, sin was in the world, but sin was not imputed while the law did not exist.
{5:14} Yet death reigned from Adam until Moses, even in those who have not sinned, in the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a figure of him who was to come.

From the Book of Tobit

{8:8} You formed Adam from the mud of the Earth, and you gave Eve to him as a helper.

Adam and Eve's arrival on the Earth is not apparent. But with faith, critical thinking, a reinterpretation of evolution, the visions of Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich, and one radical interpretation, I will attempt to make it as apparent as possible.  Adam is the first father of the present human family. Adam arrived on the Earth from God and through God he reappeared on the Earth from Paradise. With Adam's appearance back from Paradise is the beginning of language, farming, writing, migration, etc. Adam is my first anatomical modern human. Any other hominids prior to his return to the Earth from Paradise (the Garden of Eden) are not related to him, nor to us. 

Saturday, June 15, 2013

Alien Planet or Alien Star?

io9 has a new article This alien world shouldn't even exist.

A team of scientists using the Hubble found what they may think is a forming planet in the planetary nebula of the new star labelled TW Hydrae. The results are published. The only problem is that this alleged planet contradicts the standard planet forming models generally called nebular hypothesis. So the scientists are scratching their heads, yet again:

“There has not been enough time for a planet to grow through the slow accumulation of smaller debris. Complicating the story further is that TW Hydrae is only 55 percent as massive as our sun,” NASA stated, adding it’s the first time we’ve seen a gap so far away from a low-mass star.
"Typically, you need pebbles before you can have a planet. So, if there is a planet and there is no dust larger than a grain of sand farther out, that would be a huge challenge to traditional planet formation models,” stated John Debes, an astronomer at the Space Telescope Science Institute in Baltimore.

In short, conventional nebular hypothesis cannot explain the presence of this alleged planet. The reason is this hypothesis (fundamental assumption) is radically flawed. This is why the scientists are confused. One of two things could now happen. Some will push an alternate hypothesis, an ad hoc variable, which falls under the broader category of nebular hypothesis. Or some other team will attempt to disprove the alleged planet's existence. But eventually the James Webb Space Telescope will get launched and resolve the issue.

A couple commentators on io9 come very close to what I think is the correct explanation. This planet is a 'drifting exoplanet'. They are on the right track. This is the reasonable explanation. Only they do not yet conceive that this rogue exoplanet is really a very old star, perhaps a black dwarf.

If indeed there is a planet there, I assume this planet is a very old star. It happened to be in the vicinity. It got pulled in and accreted some of the left over gas and dust in the 'planetary nebula' of the new TW Hydrae star. This is perhaps how some old stars accumulate certain elements and molecules in their cycle.

The vast majority of planets are really old stars. This is easy to understand once the Big Bang myth and all its claims such as a 13.8 billion year old universe get tossed into a black hole. Then all that needs to be explained is how a star transitions from main sequence to a black dwarf and so on. The stellar evolution models and nucleosynthesis models also need some radical revision.  Way too much emphasis is placed on supernovae for nucleosynthesis.  I think a stellar cycle forms many elements without having to completely explode.  Think of the elements to the right of the periodic table.  These have many protons and neutrons crunched into a small volume marked by the small radius of the electron valence shell.  It makes more sense that these elements form in the compression of a stellar cycle than in an explosion.

I think galaxies have many old stars we call planets/exoplanets.  These have homegrown elements and molecules.  They naturally transition out of their main sequence without completely exploding.  Instead they shed some of their outer layers in a series of novae.  These cool and contract as they migrate through a galaxy and take residence around newer stars.  As they migrate or take residence around new stars they can potentially assume other elements and molecules as in the possible example of this planet pulled into TW Hydrae's.  TW Hydrae has a lot of H2O vapor in its disk so perhaps this alleged planet is assembling the H2O and will become a water world.

There is no such thing as scientific doctrines and dogmas.  There are other reasonable explanations out there other than the standard models.  

Thursday, June 13, 2013

Does Energy Convert Into Matter?

This question puzzled me for years. It is irrational and counter-intuitive to claim that energy, an abstract-dynamic concept, can change into matter, a physical object, even at the alleged subatomic level. Still scientists say they have evidence of particles spontaneously appearing and disappearing.  This calls for a reasonable explanation.  

Matter is implicit to the concept energy. Matter also precedes the concept energy. It takes the physical presence of an object as well as a light signaled from that object down a mediator to even understand and label energy. Thus energy cannot create matter, and energy does not convert into matter, ever, period. To say that energy converts into matter, even at the subatomic level really resolves to some matter converting into matter. 

This is one of the reasons why the quantum mechanics continue to make up discrete particles ad nauseam. At their rate we will have a thousand types of discrete subatomic particles by 2100. Another reason the quantum mechanics keep on inventing concepts is that they do not hold to nothingness. Their nothingness is something, but not God, so instead it gets replaced by multiverses, curvatures of spacetime, vacuum fluctuations, etc. They do not not understand, or seem to care, that the buck has to stop somewhere.

The word energy or even energy density cannot be used in a creation ex nihilo context. Never. Creation ex nihilo means something appears through no mediator. But energy implies a mediator as well as a source object connected to the mediator! To use the word energy in a creation ex nihilo context is contradictory. The saying: "energy converts into matter" resolves to some prior matter converting into matter. And similar with density. The word density implies a physical object. You cannot even think of the word density without a physical object. The word unit: energy density points to some prior matter. This energy density could not have come from spacetime. No way in hell! Space and time do not exist. They are concepts.

The apparent problem is solved once one understands that matter is an indissoluble network of atoms. The atoms are connected to all other atoms via physical EM mediators. These EM mediators intersect from all directions at countless locations in the conceptual nothing between the clusters of atoms (stars, gas, etc.). Real physical objects cross at these locations. At the intersections the EM mediators reconfigure into atoms and atoms reconfigure into intersections of EM mediators. Since we cannot see the actual physical mediators of light it appears as if atoms arrive from nothing and disappear to nothing. This is another way of explaining such phenomenon as beta decay and inverse beta decay.  And I credit Gaede for teaching me the correct principle.  It is easy to understand, once one understands that matter is a woven web of atoms.      

Particles are not constantly created and destroyed. There are no virtual particles or spacetime foam. Rather the indissoluble network of atoms is constantly changing at certain intersections of the physical EM mediators. This happens in space all the time since the space between stars and galaxies is chalk full of vibrating-rotating 3D EM mediators.

This following list of quotes is full of contradictions, misunderstandings and misnomers:

Paul Davies:

In the everyday world, energy is always unalterably fixed; the law of energy conservation is a cornerstone of classical physics. But in the quantum microworld, energy can appear and disappear out of nowhere in a spontaneous and unpredictable fashion. (1983, God and the New Physics, London: J. M. Dent & Sons. p. 162)

Contradiction. Why would the quantum micro-world be any different than the everyday world?

Paul Davies:

Even though we can't see them, we know that these virtual particles are "really there" in empty space because they leave a detectable trace of their activities. (1994, The Last Three Minutes, New York: BasicBooks, p. 32)

He puts "really there" in quotations. What the hell? Virtual particles is a misnomer.

Richard Morris:

In modern physics, there is no such thing as "nothing." Even in a perfect vacuum, pairs of virtual particles are constantly being created and destroyed. The existence of these particles is no mathematical fiction. (1990, The Edges of Science, 1990, New York: Prentice Hall, p. 25)

He first says there is no such thing as nothing but then he goes on to say that particles are constantly being destroyed, in other words annihilated! Contradiction.

Victor Stenger:

In general relativity, spacetime can be empty of matter or radiation and still contain energy stored in its curvature. Uncaused, random quantum fluctuations in a flat, empty, featureless spacetime can produce local regions with positive or negative curvature. This is called the "spacetime foam" and the regions are called "bubbles of false vacuum." Wherever the curvature is positive a bubble of false vacuum will, according to Einstein's equations, exponentially inflate. In 10^-42 seconds the bubble will expand to the size of a proton and the energy within will be sufficient to produce all the mass of the universe. 
The bubbles start out with no matter, radiation, or force fields and maximum entropy. They contain energy in their curvature, and so are a "false vacuum." As they expand, the energy within increases exponentially. This does not violate energy conservation since the false vacuum has a negative pressure (believe me, this is all follows from the equations that Einstein wrote down in 1916) so the expanding bubble does work on itself.
As the bubble universe expands, a kind of friction occurs in which energy is converted into particles. The temperature then drops and a series of spontaneous symmetry breaking processes occurs, as in a magnet cooled below the Curie point and a essentially random structure of the particles and forces appears. Inflation stops and we move into the more familiar big bang. 
The forces and particles that appear are more-or-less random, governed only by symmetry principles (like the conservation principles of energy and momentum) that are also not the product of design but exactly what one has in the absence of design.
The so-called "anthropic coincidences," in which the particles and forces of physics seem to be "fine-tuned" for the production of Carbon-based life are explained by the fact that the spacetime foam has an infinite number of universes popping off, each different. We just happen to be in the one where the forces and particles lent themselves to the generation of carbon and other atoms with the complexity necessary to evolve living and thinking organisms. (Inflation and Creation, 1996)

All the matter of the present day is stored up in a curvature of spacetime which foams and this has something to do with organisms?  The drugs are quick.  He references Einstein twice just to keep things sober.   General relativity is his idol. He elevated it beyond reason.

William Kaufmann:

Where did all the matter and radiation in the universe come from in the first place? Recent intriguing theoretical research by physicists such as Steven Weinberg of Harvard and Ya B. Zel'dovich in Moscow suggest that the universe began as a perfect vacuum and that all the particles of the material world were created from the expansion of space...
Think about the universe immediately after the Big Bang. Space is violently expanding with explosive vigor. Yet, as we have seen, all space is seething with virtual pairs of particles and antiparticles. Normally, a particle and anti-particle have no trouble getting back together in a time interval ... short enough so that the conservation of mass is satisfied under the uncertainty principle. During the Big Bang, however, space was expanding so fast that particles were rapidly pulled away from their corresponding antiparticles. Deprived of the opportunity to recombine, these virtual particles had to become real particles in the real world. Where did the energy come from to achieve this materialization? (Universe, 1985, p. 529-532)

All I can say is wow. Particles are platonic until the nothing otherwise known as space violently expands and triggers them into the real world?

Martin Bojowald:

Vilenkin's tunneling condition relies on another effect of quantum mechanics, again a consequence of properties of the wave function. A wave function can often penetrate barriers with its tails, even if those would be too high for a corresponding classical particle...Vilenkin proposed in 1983 that the universe itself might have emerged by such a tunneling process. Our universe would be the tail of a pioneering wave function that had once penetrated the barrier of the big bang and its singularity. But from where did the universe tunnel, and from where came the bulk of the wave function, whose tail our universe is supposed to be, before the tunneling process? Vilenkin's answer, obvious only at first sight: From nothing ... 
One can hardly attribute physical meaning to tunneling from nothing in a literal sense. Regardless, Vilenkin's postulate does have sense with regard to the wave function of the universe, endowed by the tunneling condition with certain initial values at vanishing volume. (Once Before Time, 2010: 222)
"Our universe would be the tail of a pioneering wave function that had once penetrated the barrier of the big-bang and its singularity." This is breathtaking. The tail of a mathematical non-entity (wave-function) penetrates the barrier of another non-entity (Big-Bang) and the 0D mathematical non entity which belongs to it (the singularity). No physical meaning, no literal sense. This is all poetry. And it is certainly not physics. He is stuck in a conceptual world.

The above quotes are fantasies. A single complete whole network of atoms appeared at the event called creation ex nihilo. All atoms are physically bound to all atoms via physical EM mediators. At the most fundamental level the EM mediators even weave the atoms at the perimeters of the atomic shells. So Gaede sometimes call his theory the Thread Theory. He came up with a rational way of explaining the mediators as inherent to the atoms. The mediators are an indissoluble physical quality attached to the atoms. Gazillions of threads weave together the atoms in a singular complex. God sent His gift woven together.

Particles are not constantly created and destroyed. There are no virtual particles or spacetime foam or whatever the quantum mechanics can dream up. Rather the indissoluble network of atoms is constantly changing at certain intersections of the physical EM mediators. This happens in space all the time since the space between stars and galaxies is chalk full of physical 3D EM mediators connecting all atoms. One type of physical object that is an intersection of EM mediators, changes into another type of physical object that is an atom. They simply reconfigure.  We have trace of the one since the atom generates friction at the perimeter of its shell. We have no trace of the other since, alone, the EM mediators pass through one another conveying light down to all the atoms.  

God created a network of atoms 'ex nihilo'. Ex nihilo implies no conceptual, physical, or spiritual mediator. God did not use energy or energy density, or spacetime, or spacetime foam, or a wave-function tunneling or any other non-entity or even entity whatsoever. "From nothing" is not to be taken so literal as to imply a concept. God delivered matter at once, at will. Matter came suddenly as a single complete whole network of atoms. All the atoms came inseparable from their mediators connecting them all, since the mediators physically weave the atoms themselves. Today, when particles seem to spontaneously appear and disappear matter is simply reconfigured: from criss-crossing EM mediators to atoms and back. One basic material object converts into another basic material object. Each has distinct qualities.  It is amazing and all, but it is not fantastical.

I am done with the Big-Bang, and the Big-Bang rants. There may have been a time when it was fashionable for Roman Catholics to hold to the Big-Bang model as a creation model.  If I am to live by faith and reason, the Big-Bang model is not the way because it is blatantly absurd. I cannot hold to it without being intellectually dishonest. That is all here on the Big-Bang.  

Wednesday, June 12, 2013

Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation

    Image credit:  Planck Satellite/ESA

The Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMB) is not some ghost 'radiation' from the Big-Bang. Light is a rotating signal transmitted from a physical object to a physical object via a mediator. A mediator is a physical object which communicates a phenomenon from one object to another object. A phenomenon is a dynamic relation of objects mediated by objects.

The CMB implies a source object. What is the source of the CMB? What source sent the light information 13.8 billion years ago? The source is not merely the decoupling of photons from hydrogen atoms for the photons are postulated to have actually converted into the protons, neutrons and electrons of the hydrogen/helium atoms themselves!!! Like a miracle.  

Is the source of the CMB God? Science cannot invoke the name of God, since it's field is limited to explaining natural objects and the cause of their phenomena. I can invoke the name of God as a source when I do theology, but physicists cannot invoke God as a source since they are limited to the explanation of natural physical objects and their relations.

Can the source of the CMB radiation be the abrupt appearance of spacetime? No. Spacetime is a sheer concept.  It is not an object. Spacetime has no ability to send light signals. It cannot be a source of light. 

Could the source of the CMB be energy? No. Like spacetime, energy is a concept. It is not an object. It is atoms associated by the square root of light's velocity. Atoms send light signals to all others and all others send light signals to them. Energy cannot communicate light.  It is a concept which always implies existing atoms and their mediators.  But in the Big Bang Theory matter comes from the CMB light.  The CMB light precedes the energy concept itself and thus matter itself!  Thus energy cannot be the source object of the CMB light.  And you cannot have energy converting into matter since this would equate both sides of the equation.  Energy cannot create matter, since the matter is implied in energy.  Matter does not self-create itself.  It exists prior to the concept called energy.         

So what is the source of the CMB? A zero dimensional dot? No, not an object. Dots are conceptual, and there is not such thing as zero dimension.  Not in the real world. A singularity? Singularities are mathematical concepts and not even good ones at that since they imply a zero = zero. Singularities quite really resolve to nothing. They cannot signal light.

Could the Big-Bang itself be the source of the light? No. The Big-Bang is a dynamic concept which the International Astronomical Union admittedly has no definition of. They do not even know what objects and relations they are studying at the very beginning.  They have no source object for the light.  

They have also misapplied the cosmological principle. The cosmological principle can only be understood in the context of all atoms interacting with all other atoms always. That is your symmetry and nothing else.  Other than this God shapes the network of atoms asymmetrically as is clear with observation.  The cosmological principle has no use anymore.  We have outgrown it!  

Only objects can signal and mediate light. 

Light is not a discrete particle. The universe is not filled up with discrete particles called photons. How could discrete particles travel rectilinearly (straight) for 13.8 billion years? Even more how can a discrete particle stretch with an expanding space? The establishment answers because light is a wave. If so when it is a wave and when is it a discrete particle? Is it a discrete particle 13.8 billion years ago, then a wave for 13.8 billion years but then a discrete particle again when it interacts with the Planck Telescope? They have no rational explanations.

Natural light is a signal conveyed from an atom down a physical electromagnetic mediator to another atom. All atoms are indissolubly connected to all others atoms, via a physical 3D mediator, a twined electromagnetic entity. Onto-logically, it can be no other way. An atom is a spool of gazillions of electromagnetic threads extending to all other atoms.  

The miracle of matter's creation ex nihilo is that God created a single complete whole network of atoms, suddenly, and stimulated upon their abrupt arrival. God miraculously delivered matter from nothing as a single complete whole and indissoluble network of atoms. Saint Basil, amazingly, as if inspired by the Spirit, puts it this way:

He [God] welded all the diverse parts of the universe by links of indissoluble attachment and established between them so perfect a fellowship and harmony that the most distant, in spite of their distance, appeared united in one universal sympathy. (Hexaemeron Homilies)

Matter is a symphony of atoms.  The atoms are linked to all other atoms via a physical mediator inherent to all atoms and this is how they relate and remain in harmony. They are bound in a most thorough connection one to all others.  The motion of a single atom affects all other atoms, even the most distant. Nothing dissolves the DNA-like links between the atoms. From arrival they are attached even forever. At the consummation God will miraculously dissolve the elements, but not the network of simple atoms (expressed as hydrogen). Then God will miraculously reconfigure the network of atoms into new objects.

The background radiation is simply the light signalling from all atoms to all other atoms in the universe. The physicist Gaede has the mediators postulated as a Electromagnetic ropes. His hypothesis 'predicts' the background radiation (although I dare say he hates the word predict used in a scientific context). He explains the background radiation this way:

This phenomenon we call “Background Radiation” is the product of all the atoms in the Universe “Quantum-Jumping” and torquing the EM ropes interconnecting them. This propagates EM torsion-wave light signals between all the EM ropes. We detect this effect term it: EM radiation! An atom sends an EM torsion-wave signal to all the receiving atoms in the Universe, which in turn, re-transmit the signal (albeit, somewhat dampened by the atoms) back to the sender and to all other atoms in the Universe. This Ping-Pong effect of EM torsion-waves also provides us with a physical explanation for the Principle of Ray Reversibility (PRR) of light. It also explains all the radio phenomena, quantum entanglement, polarization and slit-experiments without contradictions.
Again, since the majority of these cosmic EM torsion-wave frequencies (Background Radiation) are beyond the visible response of our petty retinas, it doesn’t mean that they magically come from an alleged Big Bang Creation. Atoms are in perpetual motion and incessantly Quantum Jump; sending EM torsion-waves between them. Atomic motion is eternal, that’s why we have an EM light spectrum…not because of a Big Bang. (From Olber's Paradox: Explaining the Dark Night Sky)

and in another place Gaede puts it:

For decades the mathematicians have been investigating the CMB. They claim the Big-Bang released radiation which pervades all regions of space in the form of particles they call photons. “There are 550 million photons in every cubic meter of space. . . the universe consists almost entirely of microwave photons." (Universe, William Kaufmann). To them, space itself is a medium, a bag or an ocean of sorts that is encapsulated and contoured by who knows what. EM rope hypothesis predicts the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation. All the ropes extending to atoms through neutrons fill the regions between planets, stars and gases. It is this so called background radiation that our technology allows us to detect. Thus because of their irrational insistence on particles the mathematicians erroneously concluded that the NASA’s Gravity Probe B drags space itself around when in fact it is this vibrating mesh of ropes which composes the background the mathematical world confuses with space. (The Neutron, Part Two)

God made matter very good and beautiful and an astonishing symphony all on His own without the Big-Bang!!!

The light of Genesis 1:3 does not represent the Big-Bang light!  No, no, no.  Nor does it represent stars and galaxies.  Nor does it represent the Angels or the light from the Sun.  Nor does it label light itself, that is the atomic shells pumping torsion signals to each other via the EM mediators.  

Instead, God wrought a great miracle on Earth.  God, as if a star, signaled a miraculous light to the Earth.  This light is distinct and yet not unlike the fire God will send at the consummation (2 Peter 3:10-12).  The light was miraculously communicated from God, in His Sphere called Heaven, to the Earth via the Holy Spirit.  The miraculous light was supernatural.  The miraculous light transfigured the Earth which by then was a very old dark star much older than 4.5 billion years old.  This miracle began our history.  The miraculous light swiftly progressed in a unified manner as the Earth rotated in interstellar space.  The culmination of God's miracle was the creation of Adam and then Eve followed by the Divine rest, blessing, and holiness of the seventh.  

Then Adam and Eve sinned and this began a fallen course of Earth. Earth evolved for a long long time.  Adam and Eve were cast out of Paradise after the fallen Earth had been evolving for many years, since Paradise was mystically detached from the Earth when Adam and Eve sinned.  This is more or less how I understand it at this point.     

Tuesday, June 11, 2013

Big Bang Contradictions

No Jew or Christian in his right mind can hold to the Big Bang. It is chalk full of philosophical and mathematical contradictions. It is a myth.

An expert weighs in on Big Bang from a Mathematical viewpoint:

Einstein’s field equations couple the gravitational field to its sources. The gravitational field is described by the curvature of spacetime. And that’s embodied in a mathematical entity that is called the Einstein tensor.  The matter that causes this gravitational field is described by the Energy Momentum Tensor. So that is on the right side of Einstein’s equation and on the left side we have Einstein’s Tensor. Now in the case of a black hole the relativists set the Energy Momentum tensor to zero. So Einstein’s tensor is reduced to Ricci’s Tensor and that becomes zero. The left side of this describes the gravitational field outside a body such as a black hole. Now what causes the gravitational field outside the black hole? Well the mass of the black hole is the source of the field. So on one hand the source is present. On the other hand the source is not present. It’s a contradiction. This is amplified by another fact that in the case of the so-called Schwarzchild Spacetime or black hole the Energy Momentum tensor is zero, but the relativists maintain that a source is present. That’s the source that causes the gravitational field outside their body. In the very same situation they have a spacetime called De Sitter Spacetime which is a cosmological solution and the Energy Momentum Tensor is there. Its called De Sitter’s empty world because there are no sources. So on the one hand we have the Energy Momentum tensor zero and it’s associated with a source but on the other hand an Energy Momentum Tensor is zero and it has association with no sources . . . an empty world! This is a contradiction! And so it doesn’t halt.
Now this is very important because it has a bearing on the Big-Bang cosmology. Since Schwarzchild’s Spacetime does not contain any matter and really doesn’t have any sources it’s a spacetime that contains no matter at all and so its not a generalization of special relativity, it is only a generalization of the geometry of Minkowski Spacetime. And so it can’t serve as a basis for Einstein’s gravitational field despite what the relativists claim. Now there is an upshot from this which is very important because since the Energy Momentum tensor cannot be zero, to describe a gravitational field in accordance with Einstein’s theory, since the gravitational field is coupled to its sources by his equations; his equations reduce to an identity with zero. This means that the total energy of his gravitational field is zero. Consequently it is impossible to localize gravitational energy, so that means there are no Einstein gravitational waves. The Energy Momentum Tensor and Einstein’s tensor must vanish identically. And this means that Einstein’s field equations violate the usual conservation of energy momentum. And that puts them in direct conflict with the experimental evidence on a deeper level. So on that basis the Einstein field equations must be invalid. Now since the Big-Bang is allegedly derived from Einstein’s field equations the Big-Bang cosmology is fallacious because the Einstein field equations are fallacious. (Stephen Crothers)

Einstein, himself, doubted his field concept could resolve to reality.  

Matter did not self assemble from space, and space is not expanding/accelerating. No way in hell. God delivered matter, suddenly, as a complete stimulated network of atoms. And He guided this network into the first complex physical structures, perhaps quasars.

Creation ex nihilo is a supernatural event. It cannot be scientifically explained or mathematically described. It is a miracle. No human person was there to see it. It cannot be validated by anyone other than God who wrought other miracles, revealing Himself to the Jews and Christians. A science or philosophy cannot validate creation ex nihilo.  Instead the Jews and Christians have passed the knowledge of what God did and what God said via the sacred authors down in a line to the present generation. This is called the transmission of Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture:

From the Psalms:

{144:4} Generation after generation will praise your works, and they will declare your power.
{144:5} They will tell of the magnificent glory of your sanctity. And they will discourse of your wonders.
{144:6} And they will talk about the virtue of your terrible acts. And they will describe your greatness.
{144:7} They will shout about the memory of your abundant sweetness. And they will exult in your justice.

{77:2} I will open my mouth in parables. I will speak about concepts that are from the beginning.
{77:3} We have heard and known such great things, as our fathers have described to us.
{77:4} These things have not been hidden from their sons in any generation: declaring the praises of the Lord, and his virtues, and the wonders that he has done.

God will also validate the miracle of creation ex nihilo by new miracles which He will work during the Tribulation which culminates in the Return of Jesus. From Isaiah:

{43:19} Behold, I am accomplishing new things. And presently, they will spring forth. With certainty, you will know them. I will make a way in the desert, and rivers in an impassible place.

Faith is the evidence of things not apparent.
And blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.

We have to stop stripping God of His glory.  Simple faith in creation ex nihilo is sufficient.  This could be supported by some clarifications from the spiritual authority.  In other words Roman Catholics need some clarifications on a creation model.  The Big-Bang does not equate to creation ex nihilo.  The Big Bang equates to a circle of philosophical and mathematical non-sense.  

Yes science is good and useful, but at certain junctures it falls short of explaining things. Why defend a silly cosmological model in favor of creation ex nihilo? Does God need us to validate one of his greatest works?  He validates it Himself via the Resurrection, the Exodus and many other things He has done and will do.

Monday, June 10, 2013

Angel's Creation ex Nihilo

In my creation model, I have the angel's creation ex nihilo simultaneous to matter's creation ex nihilo. The abrupt arrival of the angels does not precede the abrupt arrival of matter or vice versa. Angels and matter suddenly appear from nothing simultaneously. The Lateran Council IV seems to suggest this when it says "simul ab initio temporis." Simul in this context suggests "at once" "all together", "at the same time" in short simultaneously:

Deus…creator omnium visibilium et invisibilium, spiritualium et corporalium: qui sua omnipotenti virtute simul ab initio temporis utramque de nihilo condidit creaturam, spiritualem et corporalem, angelicam videlicet et mundanam: ac deinde humanam, quasi communem ex spiritu et corpore constitutam. 
God…creator of all visible and invisible things, of the spiritual and of the corporal; who by His own omnipotent power at once from the beginning of time created each creature from nothing, spiritual and corporal, namely, angelic and mundane, and finally the human, constituted as it were, alike of the spirit and the body (D.428).

This Council teaching seems to suggest the idea that God created the angels and matter, suddenly, at once. It also seems to me that this is the most perfect thing to do. Which is more thorough? God creating angels first and then matter, or God creating all angels and all matter, suddenly, all at once? The only thing I see God having created prior to the angels and matter is Heaven. God creates His own discrete, discontinuous, detached sphere:  the God-sphere. This sphere called Heaven is detached from all subsequent creatures. God moves it wherever He wills.  

Trillions of angels suddenly appeared. Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich suggests they appear within their own spheres:

Below the globe of light arose concentric circles of radiant choirs of spirits, wondrously bright and strong and beautiful.

These spheres are abodes containing the angels and I assume there were nine. Nine spheres containing the nine choirs. But these angelic spheres are discrete from the God-sphere. The angels arrive stimulated by God in sanctifying grace. They arrive adopted sons of God in view of the merits won by Jesus on the Cross. The angels are pure spirits. They and their spheres were detached from matter. The angels are not wired into the web of atoms.

I know little of the history of the Angels.  There is this fact that God has not revealed to us everything which has happened from creation ex nihilo. There is an entire pre-history of angels and of matter.  All I can do is provide a basic speculative model.  

God taught the angels. They learned. They developed their own word concepts and communicated with one another. They prayed. They related with one another.  They were assigned tasks, for example some were given authority to guide matter, i.e. the network of atoms. Matter is unintelligent and imperfect. It calls for guidance. It is fitting that the angels be assigned the task of taking care of the network of atoms.  Some of the mysterious phenomenon of the universe is no doubt due to the guidance of angels.  Scientists will never be able to explain everything.  Thus angels provide the care needed to fulfill God's intentions for matter. 

The angels rejoiced when the Earth was formed (from Job):

{38:4} Where were you, when I set the foundations of the earth? Tell me, if you have understanding.
{38:5} Who set its measurements, if you know, or who stretched a line over it?
{38:6} Upon what have its bases been grounded, and who set forth its cornerstone,
{38:7} when the morning stars praised me together, and all the sons of God made a joyful noise?

The beginning of Earth is associated with the morning stars, that is the first completed stars. I think Earth is an elect star. The cornerstone of the Earth is that starting point from which it developed. This would be its formation and main sequence. Our current Earth developed in stages from a fusion sequence. The sons of God, that is the angels, understood that this star was elect and so rejoiced when it was made. God gave them to understand that He had great things planned for this astronomical object.

Sometime long after the Earth-star's formation a substantial number of angels severely sinned. At least in the tens of billions. And so a new sphere called Hell was created to detain the fallen angels. Yet not all were detained in Hell. God fit some of them into His plan for the Earth.

After some of the angels rebelled God wrought the main event recorded in Genesis One.

The Fall of the Angels did not directly affect matter. The angels are not connected to matter. And God could easily make provisions for their lack. Once the angels fell God detained them. They were not able to harm anything until Adam and Eve sinned, and then only the Earth in a manner always within God's control. Prior to Adam and Eve's sin God elected a single fallen angel to tempt Eve as a just test. This fallen angel was permitted to lie to Eve and she lost her life of grace thus Jesus called this angel a liar and a murderer from the beginning.

Once Adam and Eve sinned authority was transferred to this fallen angel and other fallen angels. They harm the Earth by means of this provisional authority transferred to them as a result of Adam and Eve's sin. Thus in the Promise it is said that the woman, that is Mary, will crush the head of the serpent, meaning the authority of the fallen angels.

The faithful angels were taken up into the God-sphere, but very many are assigned tasks on Earth to provide care for us.

{5:5} Ne dederis os tuum ut peccare facias carnem tuam: neque dicas coram Angelo: Non est Providentia: ne forte iratus Deus contra sermones tuos, dissipet cuncta opera manuum tuarum.
{5:5} You should not use your mouth so as to cause your flesh to sin. And you should not say, in the sight of an Angel, “There is no Providence.” For God, being angry at your words, may scatter all the works of your hands.

This is all I have to say about angels.

Saint Basil vs. Modern Cosmologists (II)

In his Hexaemeron Homilies, Saint Basil tends to jab the same cosmological concepts which appear in the mainstream today. Here he criticizes something like a Big Crunch (Freeze or Rip) Theory as well as the new cyclical models:

But why torment ourselves to refute the errors of philosophers, when it is sufficient to produce their mutually contradictory books, and, as quiet spectators, to watch the war? For those thinkers are not less numerous, nor less celebrated, nor more sober in speech in fighting their adversaries, who say that the universe is being consumed by fire, and that from the seeds which remain in the ashes of the burnt world all is being brought to life again. Hence in the world there is destruction and palingenesis [recapitulation] to infinity. All, equally far from the truth, find each on their side by-ways which lead them to error.

In another section Basil criticizes ideas akin to multiverse:

Because there are among them some who say there are infinite heavens and worlds.

There is nothing new under the Sun. Its all been said before using other words and other languages. The modern cosmologists are just like the ancient cosmologists. A difference is that the modern cosmologists rather subtly justify their claims using field equations, e.g. "Einstein's equation allows for this understanding . . . " What kind of hogwash reasoning is this? Who is Einstein? God? Using the solution of a clever equation to provide a model of origins is quite frankly insane.

Another difference between ancient and modern cosmology is the fame and money aspect. Ancient philosophers were not granted an equivalent of billions of dollars to test their speculated events and concepts. And I doubt they had the sort of worship as some of the modern cosmological gods have enjoyed in recent years.

Big-Bang and Big-Crunch is what happens when you mix spacetime metrics (which allow for past and future) and delusions of grandeur.   They have taken their ideas too seriously.  

Saturday, June 8, 2013

Saint Basil vs. Modern Cosmologists

From Saint Basil's First Hexaemeron Homily:

The philosophers of Greece have made much ado to explain nature, and not one of their systems has remained firm and unshaken, each being overturned by its successor.  It is vain to refute them; they are sufficient in themselves to destroy one another.   

Thursday, June 6, 2013

Eureka: A Prose Poem

Meet Edgar Allan Poe, the proto-god of modern physical cosmology. Polemics aside, I genuinely find it strange that he of all people came up with their concepts before most of them were born. His last book called Eureka: A Prose Poem is a thing of beauty because it is insane.  Eureka is subtitled an essay on the Material and Spiritual Universe.  Poe probes physical as well as spiritual topics, even man's relation to God.    

Let's start with an abstract taken from the elite peer reviewed scientific journal:

From the Quarterly Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society, vol.35, p.177-192

In this paper I describe the scientific content of Eureka, the prose poem written by Edgar Allan Poe in 1848. In that work, starting from metaphysical assumptions, Poe claims that the Universe is finite in an infinite Space, and that it was originated from a primordial Particle, whose fragmentation under the action of a repulsive force caused a diffusion of atoms in space. I will show that his subsequently collapsing universe represents a scientifically acceptable Newtonian model. In the framework of his evolving universe, Poe makes use of contemporary astronomical knowledge, deriving modern concepts such as a primordial atomic state of the universe and a common epoch of galaxy formation. Harrison found in Eureka the first, qualitative solution of the Olbers' paradox; I show that Poe also applies in a modern way the anthropic principle, trying to explain why the Universe is so large. (Cappi, 1994)

Poe dreamed up some of modern physical cosmology's core concepts before Einstein and Lemaitre were conceived. He posits a primeval atom and universal expansion.  He says "Space and Duration are One."  He also anticipates Black Holes and the Big Crunch theory.  Some even say he came up with a solution to Olber's ridiculous and unsolvable Paradox which is a foundation of modern cosmology.  In his ravings, he even tried to modify LaPlace's nebular theory!

Another abtract from an online article:

One of Poe's major scientific hypotheses was the rough equivalent of the "big bang" theory. He contended the universe filled with matter after a single, high-energy particle exploded. Current "big bang" theory says the entire universe formed during a similar process, not just the matter inside it.
Poe theorized the universe must be expanding, since the energy of the explosion is pushing matter outward. Scientists wouldn't adopt this theory en masse until the early 20th century.
Poe also figured gravity eventually would pull all particles together, though, and the process would start over. Scientists believed that was true, too, until 1998, with the discovery of "dark energy" -- energy that works against gravity to keep the universe accelerating. (Poe's Little Known Science Book reprinted, Rombeck, 2005, link)

Eureka: A Prose Poem is a testament to the delusion of modern physical cosmology. It was Poe's last work. Poe even admitted that he may have been out of his mind when he wrote it. It is esoteric. It is almost unintelligible. He made strange claims that no one would understand it for thousands of years. In all his egotism, he thought it to be his greatest work even though everyone around seemed to hate it.  

It is said that in writing Poe used this transcendentalist technique called intuition. His intuition was probably induced by alcohol, drugs and God knows what else.  Here is a paragraph taken from the first section of his work:

My general proposition, then, is this: — In the Original Unity of the First Thing lies the Secondary Cause of All Things, with the Germ of their Inevitable Annihilation.
In illustration of this idea, I propose to take such a survey of the Universe that the mind may be able really to receive and to perceive an individual impression.
He who from the top of Ætna casts his eyes leisurely around, is affected chiefly by the extent and diversity of the scene. Only by a rapid whirling on his heel could he hope to comprehend the panorama in the sublimity of its oneness. But as, on the summit of Ætna, no man has thought of whirling on his heel, so no man has ever taken into his brain the full uniqueness of the prospect; and so, again, whatever considerations lie involved in this uniqueness have as yet no practical existence for mankind.

The 'Germ of Inevitable Annihilation'?  Seriously, this hogwash was probably generated by Irish whiskey and opium.  In his deranged ravings he muffs up Genesis 1:2 by implying the august Hebrew word tohu wabohu into his one primitive particle non-sense:

Let us now endeavor to conceive what Matter must be, when, or if, in its absolute extreme of Simplicity. Here the Reason flies at once to Imparticularity -- to a particle -- to one particle -- a particle of one kind -- of one character -- of one nature -- of one size -- of one form -- a particle, therefore, "without form and void" -- a particle positively a particle at all points -- a particle absolutely unique, individual, undivided, and not indivisible only because He who created it, by dint of his Will, can by an infinitely less energetic exercise of the same Will, as a matter of course, divide it. (emphasis mine)

Eureka makes something like Alice in Wonderland look sane. But lo and behold Einstein called it a beautiful achievement. Astrophysicist Arthur Eddington defended it saying, "Eureka is not a work of dotage or disordered mind". Apparently Eddington was initiated into Poe's esotericism. Other physicists like George Smoot cite it in their books.

Because of all its delusion, critics have posited hypotheses as to Poe's intentions. Poe makes caricatures of some of the world's greatest thinkers, e.g. Aristotle is called Aries Tottle. He accuses Kepler of coming to his conclusions through guesswork. He also seems to deliberately mess up Newton's ideas of gravity. So some suggest what he proposes as the true nature of the Universe is really not this Universe at all, but a poetic parallel universe which he creates for some ironic or aesthetic purpose. An astute and learned poet such as Richard Wilbur recognized Poe's work as a satire, a criticism of the world. Wilbur suggests that Poe is criticizing the world for falling away from God by placing scientific reason above poetic intuition!!!

Wilbur may be on the right track. Poe dedicated this work to Alexander Von Humboldt, a philosophical naturalist who had an ultra-Romantic idea of nature. Poe writes in his dedication:

To the few who love me and whom I love — to those who feel rather than to those who think — to the dreamers and those who put faith in dreams as in the only realities — I offer this Book of Truths, not in its character of Truth-Teller, but for the Beauty that abounds in its Truth; constituting it true. To these I present the composition as an Art-Product alone: — let us say as a Romance; or, if I be not urging too lofty a claim, as a Poem.
What I here propound is true: — therefore it cannot die: — or if by any means it be now trodden down so that it die, it will “rise again to the Life Everlasting.”
Nevertheless it is as a Poem only that I wish this work to be judged after I am dead.

Poe's intentions seem artistic and delusion-ally romantic. Perhaps he even has some aesthetic theory encrypted in this crazy piece of work.  He was a dreamer just like the modern physical cosmologists. The fact that modern cosmologists actually take some of Poe's concepts seriously, even as portents of their own concepts, condemns them! It is fitting that a delusional poet should have been the first one to conceive of the Big-Bang and other modern cosmological nonsense. The Big-Bang and other modern cosmological concepts are nothing more than a poetic myth. They are among the greatest myths in all of history. 

Monday, June 3, 2013

Contra Plate Tectonics

Here is an alternate explanation of the cracks found on the Earth's surface:

It has been taught for many decades that the Earth is comprised of individual moving plates on top of a liquid mantle. This is unnecessary. The appearance of tectonic plates is simply caused by the mantle cooling and contracting, heating and expanding in various locations underneath the crust. This phenomenon is understood and dealt with in the civil engineering of large concrete structures such as bridges, and even sidewalks. This thermodynamic phenomenon is why concrete and steel bridges are designed with gaps in them to allow for contraction and expansion without cracking. If there were no small gaps designed in bridges then the bridge would become structurally unsound and collapse. Similarly, as the Earth’s mantle contracts and cools the top portion (crust) adjusts and splits along fault lines because there are no gaps to allow for structural stress dissipation. The location of the cracks (fault lines) therefore will be a continual source of earthquakes. This explains the incredible power of earthquakes and the appearance of fault lines. Plate tectonics is unnecessary, the continents have not moved any appreciable distance in as much as a concrete sidewalk or giant concrete bridge moves. As well there is not any specific mechanism to move plates in transverse orientations as the only direction that quadrillions of tons of rock would move is in the direction gravity provides, which is down. The Earth is cooling and shrinking, the distances of “plates” being measured to “move” is simply thermodynamic contraction, this rate will obviously be measured to be quite slow.
(From Wolynski, Plate Tectonics is Unnecessary, link)

Over the past century we have been given this plate tectonic theory. The problem with this theory is that it is ultimately rooted in an inference taken from the shapes on maps.  The seed was sown in the Renaissance when first maps showed that the coastlines of South America and Africa have shapes which could appear to fit together like two pieces in a puzzle. Some assumed that they were once together.  From this was derived a mythical supercontinent, a single landmass, i.e. Pangaea with the continental drift hypothesis.

Pangaea, continental drift and plate tectonics go hand in hand. If you can swallow Pangaea, you can eat plate tectonics for desert. Plate tectonics is built upon the fantastical concept that Pangaea existed in the past. There is no validation that Pangaea existed since no one has ever seen it.  A few fossils and coastline similarities is not a validation. No one in their sane mind can ever tell you that Pangaea is proven to be true.  Pangaea is not a fact of the Universal Movie.  It is not even a statement of facts.  It is a speculation with no validation.  The formation and fragmentation of Pangaea is not a consummated event. It is a speculated event.  Plate tectonics explains speculated events not consummated events. Thus it is a philosophy blanketed as science. Pangaea and plate tectonics is its own system of thought ultimately derived from the assumption that South America and Africa have shapes which appear to fit one into another. 

Once Pangaea and continental drift were proposed it was cast aside as absurd. But some scientists continued to forcefully argue in its favor. Its a beautiful idea right? They would not let go of it. They campaigned like politicians and subdued peers to the point where all their peers asked for was a mechanism. Later the sea floor was mapped out it was noted that there are faults in the sea bed with magma spilling through. And so they adopted this as their mechanism for continental drift and justified Pangaea's existence. Now Pangaea and the upgraded version of continental drift called plate tectonics is a scientific doctrine with different sects of interpretations.

And they did not stop with Pangaea. Soon there came to be supercontinent cycles with a total of nine proposed prehistorical supercontinents: Vaalbara, Ur, Kenorland, Columbia, Rodinia, Pannotia, Pangaea, Laurasia, Gondwana. Does this seem reasonable? To me these are myths.  This is science fiction.  

Fortunately, there are other possible ways of explaining the Earth's faults like the brief one presented above. And there are sound criticisms of plate tectonics out there. But these do not include the mythical Pangaea.

For my part I have my validation that the proposed Pangaea, the supercontinents and plate tectonics are false. My validation comes from my God through Sacred Scripture:

Have you no respect for me? Why don't you tremble in my presence? I, the LORD, define the ocean's sandy shoreline as an everlasting boundary that the waters cannot cross. The waves may toss and roar, but they can never pass the boundaries I set. (Jeremiah 5:22)

God did not define the shoreline nine times, just one time as a continual boundary with no substantial change.