Saturday, October 26, 2013

Does God Transcend Space and Time?

The answer is an unequivocal no.

Why?

Because space and time are two abstract concepts that resolve to nothing in reality.  Space and time have no boundaries for God, you or me to transcend!  Space and time are not a house that you can transcend by walking out the front door and circling in the yard. There is NO front door to the universe. Or back door. Only objects have boundaries, and only can the internal structures of objects recede bounds.  Those who irrationally assume that space is an object with a bound receding at C will have to explain that which space is receding into.  Is space receding into the space of another universe?  What is outside of space? More space?  

Space lacks Form.  Space has no dimensions since it is not an object of existence with shape and internal structure. Space refers to nothing.  Space is a concept referring to the static distance between two or more objects of existence.  The distance between two nouns of reality is also called spatial separation. Adam and his children came along and conceptualized space by associating objects via their brains.  Unfortunately some have converted space into a noun of reality with a form and so now we have to deal with the patients of the insane asylum raving that the universe's bound is expanding at an ever increasing rate of acceleration into nothing! Hmm.  How does God continue to move beyond space when it is expanding so quickly?    

Theologians would do well to resolve the ontology of the referents 'space' and 'time' prior to making the strange claim that God transcends space and time.  Then after their resolution they must define space and time.  Then they should EXPLAIN just how God transcends space and time.  

Time is the brain associating a succession of locations which an object or objects assume (motion).  This is accomplished via the activity of the atoms or neurons responsible for memory.  Location is the set of static distances from one object to all other objects.  Like space, time has no bounds since it has no form. Time is all in your head. Time is a verb not a noun of reality. Humans get together and agree upon a scalar quantity to reference the motion of objects e.g. the day and then they arbitrarily divide this quantity into smaller quantities (hours, minutes, seconds, etc.). Time is a metric of motion or simply memory and motion.  And it is good to note that children of Adam and Eve have no memory of all the locations of all atoms of the universe.  The scientists are quite frankly insane when they presume to use a tautologous system to 'predict' the time of the network of atoms.

It is impossible for God to transcend space and time since time and space have no Form.  This statement is at best poetic, and at worst irrational. A better statement would be to say that God defies our rational and well-defined notions of space and time.  With God miracles are possible.  For example God is an Object who is located at two or more locations in a single still imagined frame of the Universal Movie. God can be in multiple locations at will.  And of course God is always in the Heaven, a system of objects that must necessarily be present in relation to all the astronomical objects of the our universe (otherwise Heaven could not be said to exist).

And yet the Heaven of God, or (IMHO) the parallel universe which God built up around Himself is not woven into our network of matter. But still the objects of the heavenly system must necessarily have distances in relation to all the astronomical objects of our universe. Like I said in a previous post . . . I would not be surprised the least if Heaven was right up beyond Earth.  We would never see it since the atoms of our universe are not connected by the invisible mediator of light and gravity to whatever atoms may be present in the Kingdom of Heaven.  


God is a singular type of Object that does not rely on space for His Form.  It seems to me that God binds God from His immediate surrounding. This is in accord with reason impossible yet in a faith-filled conception it seems possible since God is One yet Three.  The Three Personal Identities bind each other from their immediate surrounding in a singular eternal phenomenon that defies rationale. So when the Spirit is sent to the Earth . . . the Spirit is still bound from His immediate surrounding by the Father and the Son.  

Before a theologian goes on to say:  God transcends space and time I suggest he resolve whether or not space and time have Form or lack Form.  Resolve the ontology of the referents, and THEN define the key terms space and time and THEN explain just how God transcends these ideas.  Simply stating that God is Eternity is not good enough. Using the rationale: God is Eternity thus God transcends space and time is a meaningless statement.  It is patently circular. What have we learned???

And by the way God did not create space and time.  

Saturday, October 19, 2013

A Definition of Rational

From Fatfist's There Are No Absolutes . . . There is No Absolute Truth

"The word ‘rational’ applies specifically to statements, which are the linguistic outputs of our thoughts. We say that a statement is RATIONAL, when it meets ALL of the following criteria:

1. It does not reify concepts into objects and does not attempt to apply motion to concepts or to nothing
2. It can be visualized, illustrated, and can be put as a movie on the big screen without any missing frames.
3. Every crucial term that is referenced can be defined unambiguously and used consistently.


Where....

Object: that which has shape (something)
Concept: that which doesn’t have shape (nothing)

So clearly, what is RATIONAL has, without question, nothing to do with truth, absolutes, proof, or logic.

Rational thought is 100% without question, completely divorced from LOGICAL thought. They are in completely different categories.

1) Logical thought (truth, proof) is founded upon artificial axiomatic rules conceived by humans. Logical systems come in 2 forms which are represented in either SYMBOLIC or CONTEXTUAL languages. They are only DESCRIPTIVE, and never prescriptive. They cannot prescribe or explain reality. This means that as a language, logic (truth, proof, etc.) deals exclusively with concepts, and not objects. Hence, logic can NEVER have any EXPLANATORY power. Logic can never be used to EXPLAIN why natural phenomena happen a certain way because it deals with concepts (verbs & adverbs), and NOT objects (the nouns of reality)! Logic is only descriptive.....it can only DESCRIBE the subjective and opinionated observations a human made via his physically limited sensory system. This is why logic is 100% DIVORCED from reality!

2) Rational thought is predicated upon reality, Mother Nature’s realm, which can only be critically reasoned by humans. It is not based on artificial axiomatic rules or any systems of logic. It is based on the realization that the universe consists of either SOMETHING (that which has shape), or NOTHING (that which doesn’t). There is NO conceivable middle ground between shape and no-shape, or any other option.....ever! This is reality, and this is what the word RATIONAL is predicated upon!!

What is rational is not subject to someone’s opinion. This is the objective criterion demanded by reality....Mother Nature’s realm. Rationality is necessarily predicated upon OBJECTIVITY, without the injection of the opinions of human observers. Otherwise, it will degrade to an issue of ordinary speech, religion, opinion, or the Symbolic Logical Religious sect known as Mathematical Physics, which is 100% dependent upon the subjectively biased observations, opinions & descriptions of humans. Not a single rational explanation can ever be offered by any discipline which is based on LOGIC."***


*** comment from the legendary Fatfist’s in his article There are No Absolutes . . . There Is No Absolute Truth Link

Monday, October 14, 2013

From Clay to M & F Gametes of Hominids?


Now no shrub of the field had yet grown on the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprouted, for the LORD God had not caused it to rain on the earth, and there was no man to cultivate the ground. Springs would well up from the earth and water the whole surface of the ground. The LORD God formed the man from the soil of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being. (Genesis 2:5-7, NET version)

Some adherents of polygenism get delusional when it comes to this context of Genesis 2. They read their personal beliefs into the Sacred Script without rhyme or reason. Recently I saw an interpreter go from 'clay' or 'soil' or 'dust' of the ground to matter to a union of M & F gametes of a hominid embryo! I asked how God and the sacred author could refer to M & F gametes of a hominid via matter via 'clay of the ground'. How is this even conceivable? 'Clay of the ground' does not normally refer to matter. Matter is a vague Western concept come out of Greece. The sacred author would have had to go to school to Greece, learn about the concept of matter, figure clay as matter, but then really refer to union of M & F gametes in a hominid the whole time. How did the sacred author know about hominids? Was he a paleontologist?

This interpreter proposed a figure of a figure, an absurdity in itself, and he did so without any rationale or justification. I told him that it would be better not to reference the Sacred Script at all. I mean just write your own script. Build yourself a myth. Why follow Sacred Scripture when it cannot be reconciled with your ideas. Go adopt the myths of the pygmies.

Sacred authors and prophets are forthright. They do not fop around with philosophy and biological theories.

Man discovers fossils shaped similar to Man. Science defines Man as an animal. Science points to the fossils and assumes Mankind are related to the fossils. The scientists date the fossils and say they lived 70, 000 or whatever years ago. This supposition is based on the supposition that isotopes decay at a constant rate (falsified by researchers at Purdue University just last year, and in any case atoms do not remember when it is time to decay!!!). The supposition that isotopes decay at a constant rate is plugged into a tautological math equation formulated at the time of horse and buggies using a ridiculous model of the atom. Then scientists set out to explain how Mankind descended from the hominids. They assume that different types of hominids (different species) cross bread, an irrational assumption, since offspring of cross bread species tend to be weak and are not viable candidates for a continuous evolutionary line. Scientists do not discard the hypothesis. Instead they attempt to ‘validate’ the theory using tautological systems such as math and logic and computer models. They force the conclusion that Mankind is descended from a mix of hominid Africans, Neanderthals and Devonisians. Then they propose their opinion to the world as if validated in effect converting their assumptions into facts. They propose beliefs to be believed in by the public under the guise of facts. They run propaganda, scientific censures, and advertising. Soon most of the world believes believes that they descended from hominid species and ultimately a single cell. And they think that this is rational.

And I have to deal with idiotic interpretations of my Sacred Script and be called a science fiction writer.


Then I said in my heart, about the sons of men, that God would test them, and reveal them to be like wild animals. (Ecclesiastes 3:18)

Those who are convinced that they are animals and descended from animals are more like animals and less like children of God.

These are the ones who segregate themselves; they are animals, not having the Spirit. (Epistle of Jude 1:19)

Faith defines Man as a child of God descended from Adam yet adopted in Christ Jesus and having the Spirit. We became more like animals when Adam and Eve sinned; yet we are not animals. God made us to live like animals as a punishment and as a test. Yet we are children of God in Christ Jesus, having the Spirit and we can live more like children of God and less like animals. Unfortunately this has been proven otherwise.  But as for me I rest in my belief that I am a child of the Holy Father.  No one can take this away from me or anyone.  It is written.  This is a concept one can stake their life on.  This is the concept God conceived of when he decided to make Man to his own image in relation to Himself.  This concept is the difference.        

First Technological 'Visualization' of the Hydrogen Bond

Hydrogen bonds hold together the strands of the double helix of DNA. They are also essential to the unique properties of H2O. When it comes to hydrogen bonds the question is simple. What are the bonds made of? What connects the hydrogen atom of one water molecule to the oxygen atom of another molecule? How do water molecules communicate with one another? Do they communicate via an abstract concept such as 'force', 'energy' or 'field'??? Or do they communicate via a continuous 3D physical entity.

A few weeks ago team of Chinese scientists led by led by Xiaohui Qiu and Zhihai Cheng of China’s National Center for Nanoscience & Technology, along with Wei Ji of Renmin University of China used their technological toys [AFM] to detect a hydrogen bond. They isolated an 8-hydroxyquinoline compound, placed it on a copper surface, and lowered in a probe near the surface of the compound. The tip of the probe is a single atom. The electron shell of the atom sweeps the surface of the molecule. The purpose of the experiment is to directly detect the shapes at the surface. Here are some explanations of the experiment:


As mentioned in an earlier comment, we aren't taking optical pictures by using atomic force microscopy (AFM). It is really like he have a record player arm with a little tip on the end. The interaction of the tip with the molecules will force the tip upwards and bend the arm slightly. By using a finely calibrated laser, we can determine how much the arm was bent up and thus infer the surface structure of the molecule in question. Optical pictures are inherently limited by the wavelength of an electron so we can't "take pictures" of anything smaller. But in a sense, yes, we are getting data that can be used to construct a picture of atoms and molecules. . . 
The term microscope is kind of misleading for AFM. There is no collection of optical data. AFM is much more akin to a record player. A needle with a single atom at its tip detects surface features through electrostatic interactions. The image is just a rendering of the data the needle collects. Dynamic data, at least on the order of femtoseconds, will most likely never come from this method, because the needle must scan over the whole molecule to generate a picture. . . 

Atoms are too small for visible light to reflect off of. So, we need to kind of "feel" around them in order to get an idea of what they look like. Atoms have electrons around them, and electrons repel one another. You can visualize atoms by taking advantage of this fact. Atomic force microscopes measure this repulsion by taking one atom attached to a sensitive instrument and moving it around other atoms.***

So the electron shell of the atom placed on the probe spins, interacting with the electron shells of the molecules. 8-hydroxyquinoline is a flat molecular structure. They chose this molecule to make it easier for the probe to scan the surface. Here is a picture of one 8-hydroxyquinoline:



Like I said above the purpose of the experiment is to detect the 3D shapes placed on the copper surface. They placed four 8 hydroxyquinolene molecules on the surface at room temperature supposing they would detect hydrogen bonds connecting the molecules to each other. Here is what they visualized:

Carbon = gray, Hydrogen = white, Oxygen = red, Nitrogen = blue.


First of all notice the contradiction between the real picture and the depiction the scientists use. The real picture has a thin continuous entity going from an H atom to a O or N atom in opposite molecule but the picture the scientists use has a dotted line!

But my question is what are those continuous cables connecting the H atoms of one molecule to the O or N atoms of another molecule? The spinning atomic shell of the probe swept the surface of the entire molecular chain to detect 3D shapes. What are those shapes?


the supposed EM ropes

The bonds are made of an Electric thread and a Magnetic thread twisted taut as a rope like entity. The atoms induce the rope to torque conveying light signals of various link lengths and heights (frequency and amplitude). They also mediate gravitational phenomenon. The EM ropes connect all atoms of the universe and fork out at the atomic perimeters weaving to the proton and electron shell. The proton is the crisscrossing of Electric threads, and the electron is a cocoon of interlacing Magnetic threads.



Under the rope hypothesis neither is there a magical ‘field’ nor do sticks suddenly pop up from the mathematician’s magic hat. Every proton/electron pair is bound to all other proton/electron pairs by exactly two threads, one electric and one magnetic. The ‘hydrogen bond’ interconnecting a hydrogen atom of one water molecule to the oxygen of another consists of exactly 8 ropes, one for each of the proton-electron pairs that comprise oxygen. (Gaede:  page 371 of Why God Doesn't Exist)  

In the picture above there are several hydrogen bonds. The intra-molecular hydrogen bonds connect H to C so the number of EM ropes connecting the two would be exactly six per bond. The inter-molecular bonds connect H to N and H to O respectively: For H to O there would be 8 ropes as in the connection of water molecules. For the H to N there would be 7 ropes. The detection of the atomic probe was not fine enough to pick out the number of EM ropes per 'bond' yet amazingly it did well enough to detect something. Now the quantum mechanics will have to scramble and make up some rationalization.

The 8-hydroxyquinolene molecules are a type of bond that in Thread Theory is an interlacing of Magnetic threads forking out at the atomic perimeters from the EM ropes. That is why I suppose they visualize like fuzzy blobs. The magnetic threads composing the single atom of the probe were repelled by the fanning magnetic threads of the molecules that are interlaced. But when the probe was moved from one molecule to the next it did well enough to detect something of the presence of the supposed EM ropes connecting the atoms to one another.

More Gaede:

‘Hydrogen bonds’ never break because they consist of the ropes that bind any two atoms. This explains why there are H-bonds even in water. It also explains DNA denaturation, the process where heat separates the two strands. Coincidentally, the rungs between DNA backbones are also made up of hydrogen bonds.
High temperature means that the atom is vibrating or moving faster . . Faster vibrations translate into higher frequency (i.e., a greater number of links per unit length along the rope).  The water molecule is thus free to move around. It is not bound rigidly to another molecule. Think of melted butter. When a cold wave comes in, the molecules vibrate at a slower pace. The frequency decreases (i.e., the number of links per unit length along the rope decreases). The atom vibrates and pumps at a slower rate.  Increasingly, the molecules of water lose the liberty to move around. They form permanent rings or pyramids until a warm wave front injects ‘energy’ (high frequency) into them again.  (from page 373 of Why God Doesn't Exist)
Gaede had the hydrogen bond visualized before the technologists did.  



***Source of quotes : http://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/1nasz9/first_visualization_of_a_hydrogen_bond_using/

Friday, October 11, 2013

Another Rogue Planet Without a Sun Discovered

Astronomers Say They've Found a Rogue Planet with no Sun

The astronomers discovered a ‘free floating planet’ labelled PSO J318.5-22. It moves between stars about 80 light years from the Earth. This planet has no Sun. It is six times the size of Jupiter.  It mostly sends infrared link lengths (frequencies). It is shivering in interstellar space. I assume that this astronomical object is an old star that has been swinging around the galaxy for billions of years. It falls within the curve of stellar transformation. No big deal.

Image & Caption Credit: N. Metcalfe & Pan-STARRS 1 Science Consortium

On the other hand the scientists are really starting to try my patience with their ‘mysteries’. Mainstream says that this is evidence of the first free-floating planet since they assume in their globullete hypothesis that the other discovered rogue planets, called brown dwarfs, are really stars that failed to ignite. So now we have stars that failed to ignite and free floaters launched out from their parent stars.

They assume that this planet formed in the nearby star’s disk of dust and gas since they cannot think beyond nebular hypothesis. They are stuck in their nebular hypothesis tautology. But what really kills me is that assume that this object is 12 million years old. Why? Because a nearby star called Beta Pictoris is supposedly 12 million years old. PSO must have formed with Beta Pictoris! Thus it is a tender 12 million years old. Of course, how convenient!!! Are these guys for real? How they come up with these ages is beyond me. I mean were they there 12 million years ago to see these two objects form together?

In any case suppose PSO formed in the disk of gas and dust with Beta Pictoris. How in Hell’s name could this planet be moving light years away from Beta Pictoris in interstellar space a mere 12 million years after their formation together? I mean if this enormous planet larger than Jupiter formed in a locked orbit (what we call in celestial mechanics an inverse square regime) with an enormous star how is it just going to mosey on out of orbit before 12 million years? What is their answer?

It is a mystery!

Yes, this is science these days. They left reason long ago. Now they have miracles and mysteries like my religion. Hmm, I get a sense that there are lots of mysteries bloated into the nebular hypothesis and the new globulette theory. I look forward to their next ad hoc hypothesis. They got so many variables in this monster that even the great Einstein would be confused.

I wonder if they will ever wake up and assume the only rational hypothesis: Planets, especially ones wandering around the galaxy are stars. "Stars are planets and planets are stars. Stars are young planets and planets are old stars." (Wolynski, from Stellar Metamorphosis)

Planets are cooling compressing stars. Any one of these objects wandering around could be billions of years old. They are all over the galaxy because that is what a galaxy is: a system of stars. Some old stars wander around the halo, and other old stars are locked into orbit around newer stars.


image by Jeffrey A. Wolynski who conceived of the insights

Thursday, October 10, 2013

The Darkness of Genesis 1:2

Notice to the Reader

I've built up my interpretation from many of my previous blog posts, so if you feel a bit lost just back track.

My Translation

In a beginning, God had created the form of Heaven and the form of Earth.
And when Earth existed as an astonishing-desert, with darkness around a face of abyss . . .

Warm-up quotes taken from Saint Basil:

“Darkness was upon the face of the deep.” A new source for fables and most impious imaginations if one distorts the sense of these words at the will of one’s fancies. By “darkness” these wicked men do not understand what is meant in reality—air not illumined, the shadow produced by the interposition of a body, or finally a place for some reason deprived of light. [. . .]The word is simple and within the comprehension of all. [. . .] But reason asks, was darkness created with the world? Is it older than light? Why in spite of its inferiority has it preceded it? Darkness, we reply, did not exist in essence; it is a condition produced in the air by the withdrawal of light. (Hexaemeron, Homily II)

What is Darkness?

Darkness refers to a concept. Obviously, darkness does not have Form! This is what Saint Basil was trying to get at. Since darkness is a concept it needs to be defined. Start by saying darkness is a relation of your eyes with all objects of the universe via the mediators of light connecting all atoms that we assume are EM ropes. Atoms are constantly jumping sending torsion signals to all atoms via the ropes. Never mind the concepts absorption, relay, reflection, refraction, etc. These type relationships are for certain occurrences of light. But all one need do is think simple. Suffice to say that atoms stimulate all atoms via twirling signals conveyed down EM ropes. The link length of the EM ropes is called frequency, the link height of the ropes is called amplitude. When one’s eyes are induced to receive certain frequencies the one’s relation with other objects is dark. Darkness resolves to a lack of certain frequencies which the eyes and brain can utilize. Darkness is concept conceived by Man. 

Darkness refers to a concept. This concept is used to describe the object called Earth.  In relation to the object called Earth is this relation called darkness.  God did not create darkness. Darkness does not exist. Darkness has no nature. We can all go home and sleep well knowing that this word does not refer to some primeval entity, a mythical object, a fallen angel or Hell. Darkness could be used as a figurative concept to refer to other concepts such as evil or disorder, or a weak connection in the mind, etc. Yet here I have firmly established over the course of ninety blog posts that the second verse of Genesis 1 refers to the astronomical object Earth. The sacred author saw the Earth. The Earth is the subject of the sentence. In Gen 1:2 use of the word darkness is not figurative, philosophic, mythical or even theological it is rather descriptive. The sacred author is describing the Earth as he saw it just prior to the main light-event. If you want to read a philosophy or myth or scientific theory or theology or figurative language into this word then in my opinion you depart from the intention of the sacred author which is also the intention of God.

Strictly speaking there is no darkness only a deprivation of certain frequencies that the human eye can apply in utility. This is an important point since it can be used in a sort of two-way analogy for the relationship between God and Man as well as Mother Nature and Man. God does not care what are your abilities and dispositions He just keeps on sending His gratuitous signals (graces). Mother Nature does not care what type of signals your eyes and brain can use. She just keeps sending her signals to and from all atoms by way of the EM Ropes. 


No matter where one looks the atoms of our eyes and entire body are receiving incoming signals. Light phenomenon is a constant occurrence. Light is a two way phenomenon:  to and from all atoms, just as described by Newton's and Einstein's c squared concept. Atoms are constantly giving and receiving links of rope (rope is a standing wave that twirls as it forks out at the atoms). There is no real atom that is not giving and receiving a torsion signal via the physical mediators of light. Darkness resolves to a lack of certain frequencies stimulating your eyes. It is a subjective and artificial concept. Man made it up. God did not create darkness and He only later names it in this Genesis 1 context so as to teach us through the prophet’s script.

In the Genesis 1:2 context, darkness is coupled to a preposition denoting spatial relations: the word over. Only darkness is not an object it is a concept.  The concept darkness is encircling the Earth. Put two and two together and the sacred author is clearly referring to outer space contouring the surface of the Earth, so to speak. 'Darkness over a face' resolves to spatial separation. The sacred author was mystically looking at the Earth and describing her boundary. The surface of an abyss is where the Earth’s atoms end. Just beyond her boundary there were no proximate atoms or objects made of atoms. Over the Earth’s abysmal surface there was no outgoing light signals. There was only the darkness. Space does not give or receive light signals since it lacks Form.  Only atoms give and receive light signals. 


The sacred author had a prophetic view where He could see Earth’s face and pick out the boundary from her immediate surrounding which was the darkness. The sacred author was not describing the Earth from her surface, he was rather describing the Earth as if from outer space.  Consider the Earth appearing to the sacred author in a dream something like this:



This leads us to the question as to why the sky is dark. After all if all the atoms of the universe are conveying light signals to your eyes why isn’t the sky lit up from all directions. And the answer is simple. The distance between your eyes and the objects sending the light signals is too great. Over great distances light signals fade, so to speak.

Why is the Night Sky Dark?

Darkness is a deprivation of visible light stimulating your eyes. Light is a phenomenon. Atoms stimulate atoms via torquing EM ropes. What is it that is happening when you look at the Sun? The atoms of the Sun are connected to the atoms of your eyes via the mediators of light, the microscopic DNA-like EM ropes. The solar atoms pump and vibrate torsion signals i.e. the EM rope twirling at various frequencies (link-lengths) and amps (link-heights). These signals are conveyed down along the EM ropes and induce the atoms of your eye to jump. The quantum jumping induced from the Sun is relayed from the atoms of the eyes to the brain for processing.

Light signals are conveyed rectilinear (straight) thus when you are in space and look to the side of an astronomical object either sending signals or relaying signals it will appear dark. Why? Because surrounding these objects there are no proximate (close) atoms to emit or relay signals to your eyes. Space does not send twirling light signals because this name refers to an idea. Concepts lack Form and so cannot perform actions.

If one is in space viewing an astronomical object, even if one looks to the side of that object there would still be incoming light signals since it is conceivable that every direction of the sky ends on a star or galaxy.  From countless observations there are supposed to exist gazillions (albeit a finite number) of stars and galaxies. However the light signals sent by these distant stars and galaxies comes into the eyes at a low frequency (long link-lengths). The reason is simple: distance. The mystique dark night sky resolves to distance. 

Over long distances signals sent by galaxies and stars reconfigure to frequencies below visible range. All the stars and galaxies themselves do not appear in all directions of the sky because of distance. Step back far enough away from a torch it will appear as a dot. Step away further it will disappear, nevertheless it is still there and sending signals via EM rope connected to your eyes. Only the EM ropes superimpose torquing long link-lengths such as radio. Your eyes and body are continually stimulated by light signals converging from all the atoms of the universe. Only their frequencies are not processed by our eye organs responsible for interpreting light. 

Darkness is a lack of certain frequencies stimulating your eyes. Nevertheless there are always atoms conveying light signals to atoms via EM rope connecting all atoms of the universe. Light is a phenomenon that always occurs. Darkness is an artificial brain-work drawn out of the experience of the eyes incapable of processing frequencies such as infrared, radio, ultraviolet, X-Ray, gamma-ray and so on.

Light signals are induced by all atoms pumping thus sending torsion signals down EM ropes connecting all atoms. Over great distances the signals reconfigure below visible perception. So for an observer on Earth looking up through the night sky or an observer in orbit in some directions there are no proximate atoms to emit or relay signals where there is no visible light phenomenon. 

In addition one cannot see that microscopic mediator of light, the EM ropes, thus if there are no atoms present there are still be EM ropes but these are not visible. The scientists think that there is such a thing as dark matter and such a concept as dark energy. They know that there is something mediating light and gravity between the stars and galaxies but they cannot see it. They do not realize that the mediator of light is also the mediator of gravity. And they do not know the Form of this mediator. Dark matter is the unit of matter that is EM ropes. Dark energy is simply the various torsion signals conveyed along the EM ropes. The Universe is comprised of a supposed single continuous close looped thread and the two fundamental units weaved of it: the EM rope and atoms. Thus coming out of the side of any astronomical object are gazillions of mediators which cannot be seen. 

My Interpretive Theory of Darkness in Gen 1:2

The darkness concept in Gen 1:2 is fairly simple. I assume the sacred author experienced a prophetic 3D movie of the events described in his script. He looked at the Earth, saw looked at it's Form as if orbiting her in space. He noticed a few surface features. The surface of the abyss is Earth's boundary separated by EM Ropes. 'Darkness over' refers to the separation of the Earth. Space does not convey visible light signals since it is nothing so there was nothing for the sacred author to see surrounding the face of the Earth (other than the Spirit who is a Divine Object). 

The sacred author is explaining the face of the Earth as if seeing it from outer space. End of story. It is a very simple word just as Saint Basil said. It can be comprehended by all.  Earth is contoured, so to speak, by the darkness of space. Once you realize the sacred author was experiencing a prophetic 3D movie the descriptions are easy to visualize. Just imagine yourself in place of the sacred author.

The Hebrew preposition 'ol translated as over is polysemous, meaning it has multiple related meanings, or a broad semantic field. Here it is a concept referring to spatial relations.  Synonyms could be around, surrounding, encircling, beyond.  So darkness encircling the face, around the face, surrounding the face, just beyond the face, etc.  Only like I said above the preposition 'over' spatially relates the concept darkness.  Thus one can connect the dots to solve the riddle that the darkness is the space 'contouring' the shape of the Earth that the sacred author saw in the vision.  

In this context the preposition assumes proximate spatial separation. The Earthen surface is contoured by space which is nothing and so described as darkness. 'Darkness over' is purely conceptual. It refers to spatial separation, delineation, demarcation, etc. There is nothing located in close approximation to the Earth's boundary described as a surface of abyss. Beyond the surface is the nothingness of outer space thus the sacred prophet chooses the description: darkness over.

Earth's Location

I believe God showed the sacred author the Earth as it was moving between stars. The Earth’s surface was at the time not stimulated as it is now closer to the Sun. Back then the Earth was swinging around the galactic core on a course near the Sun. She was not yet near the Sun when God first sent forth the Spirit and transfigured her surface. So perhaps the sacred author saw Earth’s shape, and some surface features, but at first impression the surface may have been a bit dim by lack the full range of perceptible frequencies coming from the Earth. In her vision Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich describes the Earth as a ‘dark globe’. It was a dark star or black dwarf moving between stars i.e. interstellar space. In any case he clearly saw a shape and some surface features since Earth was miraculously spotlighted by the Presence of the Spirit. 

In the course of the light event (described in Gen 1:3) God directs the Earth into a locked system (an inverse square regime) with the Sun, and the Moon locked in a system with the Earth so that these may convey light signals but the events begin beyond the Sun’s effect on the Earth. So perhaps the sacred author saw something like this (only a bit closer):



Or something like this:


Like I said in another post these pictures are not to be taken too literally. All I am trying to do is help place one in the eyes of the sacred author. The Earth was between stars. There was darkness beyond her boundary, however the Spirit of God was emitted from Heaven by the Father and the Son. The Presence of the Spirit provided enough light for the sacred author to see just prior to the main event. Perhaps the Spirit had one side of the Earth lit up in a preferential direction connected up to the Heaven of God.

Imagine being given a side view of God in Heaven as if a star emitting a ray of light down on a dark planet. The prophetic light beam connecting God in Heaven to the Earth lighting up one side of the Earth presents the Spirit. The Spirit was present as the Mediator of God's decisions. The Father and the Son transformed the face of the Earth via the Spirit who was sent so as to establish a Divine connection. This is extremely important to understand and I will harp on this a lot in my interpretation of Gen 1:3. But Genesis 1:2 is just prior to the main light-event thus the Spirit's Presence probably provided a little light to the Earth for the purposes of the sacred author's description. The events themselves are more important than all the subtleties of the set-up description.

Spirit of God paralleled with Darkness

Darkness over the face of the waters
Spirit of God hovering over the face of the waters

In the well-known and well-studied parallel structure of the second verse darkness is set in contrast to the Spirit of God moving or hovering or fluttering over the Earth's surface. Spirit of God and darkness are not synonyms or even antonyms. They are contrasted since the sacred author saw the Spirit moving around Earth's boundary. The Spirit is the only object proximate to the Earth. There is just the Earth, and the Spirit moving around the Earth's surface. So perhaps the movements of the Spirit lit up a portion of the Earth’s face when the command is sent and the Spirit stimulates the entire surface to erupt or expand out coinciding with a glow in the dark:

For the Spirit being one, and holding the place of light, was between the water and the Heaven, (Theophilus ad Autolycus, Genesis Commentary)

In the prophecy the Spirit is the go between God in Heaven and the Earth.  
The Spirit is there awaiting the command to stimulate the surface. Prior to the light-event God sent the Spirit to establish a singular unprecedented connection between God and an astronomical object of the Universe called the Earth.

*** for more read the best brief cosmology article I have ever read: OLBER'S PARADOX: Explanation for the Dark Night Sky

Tuesday, October 8, 2013

The 2013 Nobel Prize in Physics is a Whitewash


The Nobel Prize in Physics 2013 was awarded jointly to François Englert and Peter W. Higgs "for the theoretical discovery of a mechanism that contributes to our understanding of the origin of mass of subatomic particles, and which recently was confirmed through the discovery of the predicted fundamental particle, by the ATLAS and CMS experiments at CERN's Large Hadron Collider"

They have discovered no mechanism. All these fraudulent charlatans have done is spent billions of dollars, played with mathematics, stimulated Electromagnetic threads and visualized (or detected) a proton

Here is there billion dollar 2D visualization of a proton:




Here is a close-up of my two dollar model of a proton that I learned from Gaede independent of the charlatans of CERN:


In the EM Rope hypothesis and Thread Theory, formulated by Gaede before CERN was built, it is supposed the 3D Electric Threads of the Universe converge at the center of all atoms forming the proton 'koosh ball'. At the perimeter of the atoms Magnetic Threads arc out to cacoon the Electric Threads that run straight to the center of the atom.

There is no Higgs field. A field is a concept. All Higgs and company suppose is a sea of discrete particles, but there are no discrete particles. Look at the bloody billion dollar CERN picture. Do you see discrete particles? Where are those 'lines' coming from?  What holds their fields upon fields of discrete particles together? What pulls there now 61 discrete particles together? If you have nothing holding everything together you have no pull and no rational mechanism   How does matter work if all you have are ricocheting bullets?  Bullets cannot pull and hold everything together.  Force particles cannot connect all matter since they are discrete. Discrete particles cannot mediate a ray or beam of light (rectilinear itineraries).  The quantum mechanics cannot visualize a continuous mediator that connects all the atoms of the universe. Instead they are addicted to maths, predictions and billion dollar baby-men toys thus they are lost.  They have completely failed to penetrate the elegance of matter.  

In EM Rope Hypothesis and Thread Theory the 'building blocks' of matter are Electric threads and Magnetic threads supposed to be a single continuous looped thread. This single continuous looped thread is a 3D object. It is supposed to be weaved into taut EM ropes that fork out to form atoms all the atoms of the universe. The distinction between Electric thread and Magnetic thread is the two directions they split in at the atoms. The Electric threads go straight through to the center of the atom collectively forming a taut symmetrical proton, and all the Magnetic threads collectively arc out forming the electron shell. At the other side of the E threads and M threads retwist and 'extend' out as EM ropes to atoms. 

All atoms are connected to all atoms via the EM ropes. EM ropes and Hydrogen atoms are the two fundamental units of matter. Mass is a bi-directional tension of all Electric Threads and Magnetic Threads of the EM ropes that form the atoms. The more atoms the more potential for tug.  The EM rope is supposed to mediate light and gravity. The E threads mediate electricity and M threads arc out to mediate magnetism from the atoms themselves (for more see my previous post Universe and Matter in Genesis 1:2? or just read Gaede's brilliant work in physics called Why God Doesn't Exist)

Edit to add:  In Thread Theory neutrons are crisscrosses or cross points of the supposed EM rope extended to all atoms.  Neutrons are scattered all over the universe. These neutrons can convert into hydrogen atoms.  And it is conceivable that hydrogen atoms can convert to neutrons in certain circumstances (e.g. the H atom pumps gamma signals it could collapse into EM rope). Hypothetically, neutrons: crisscrosses of EM ropes would look almost identical to protons: crisscrosses of Electric Threads.  So perhaps some of CERN's visualizations are neutrons.      

The scientists of CERN and all the particle accelerators of the world are fraudulent charlatans wasting public funds. They have no continuous mediator which is the only rational assumption of light and gravitational phenomenon. They have no pull. They have nothing holding everything together. They have no mechanism. Their assumptions and theories are irrational. All they have is maths, mysticism, reified concepts, the modern pantheon to the particle gods called CERN and Nobel Prizes:

"Woe to you when the crowds speak well of you, for their fathers used to treat the false prophets in the same way."

"Amen I say to you they have received their reward."  

---quotes taken from Christ Jesus

Thursday, October 3, 2013

Job 26:7 In Honor of NASA's Shutdown

NASA is shutdown this week. There will be no proving Einstein's relativity or searching for aliens on public funds. In honor of this occasion I will do a little interpretation of Job 26:7.

Against modern thought Sacred Scripture emphatically and inerrantly teaches that space is nothing. There is no such thing as space. Space is not a physical object, spiritual object or Divine object. Space has no Form. Objects or phenomenon such as gravity do not interact with space since space refers to nothing. Just a concept!  The structure of space does not modify since there is no structure. Space does not expand, stretch, warp, inflate or behave in any manner whatsoever since space refers to nothing. Space does not move; rather objects move. Space cannot be explored or measured since it is a non-entity. Space is not a bloody medium! God did not create space. God creates objects, not concepts that refer to nothing in existence such as space. Space is a static concept that relates distances between objects such as the Sun and the Earth.

Since space is nothing the concept that Universe has a shape is idiotic. Universe has no shape. There are no bounds to the Universe. No bounds equals no shape.

The Earth is not revolving around the Sun on a physical spacetime structure like a ball rolling on a roulette table. The Earth is 'suspended' on nothing just as the sacred prophet wrote in the Book of Job. Job 26:7 is one of those very rare instances of the Sacred Script that teaches physics. The space is nothing proposal is taught and validated by God Himself. Verse 26:7 of Job is more than enough to correct and destroy the proposals of modern physics and cosmology. Heck, the reason of a ten year old is enough to correct them.

But in any case Job 26:7 corrects some of Einstein's foolish thought and refutes the Big-Bang hypothesis. One stroke of the sacred author's stylus on bark destroys modern physical cosmology, its false assumptions and condemns all the exploitation of public funds. Those who wasted billions of other people's money on foolish projects such as the Gravity B probe, WMAP, COBE, and Planck will have to answer for it. Those who idolize Einstein will have to bow down to Job. In the future the poor in spirit and the meek will sit down and teach the rich and arrogant mainstream scientists.

Translations of Job 26:7

qui extendit aquilonem super vacuum et adpendit terram super nihili (Vulgate)
He stretched out the north over the empty space, and hangeth the earth on nothing (DRV)
​​​​​​​He spreads out the northern skies over empty space; ​​​​​​he suspends the earth on nothing (NET)
He stretches out the north wind upon nothing, and he upon nothing hangs the earth;
He stretches out the North over empty space, and suspends the earth over nothing at all (NAB)
He it was who spread the North above the void and poised the earth on nothingness. (NJB)
stretching-out north over chaos hanging earth on without what? (Hebrew interlinear CHES 2.0)

I like the CHES 2.0 Hebrew interlinear version. The Hebrew suggests that space is without what or without whateness. Space is no what, rather it is all where.  Space is discovered to be nothing at all.  It is all conceptual. Without physical objects in existence space could not even be conceived of. Einstein was confused about gravity and took a short cut. He converted space into a thing that a phenomenon modifies. He reified space like the ancients reified love and war into gods.

The Physical Mediators of Gravity


So if the Earth is suspended over nothing how does it remain tied to the Sun? Even Newton had no suggestion for this riddle. He was content to give up:

Hitherto I have not been able to discover the cause of those properties of gravity from phenomena, and I frame no hypotheses, for whatever is not deduced from the phenomena is to be called an hypothesis; and hypotheses, whether metaphysical or physical, whether of occult qualities or mechanical, have no place in experimental philosophy. In this philosophy particular propositions are inferred from the phenomena, and afterwards rendered general by induction. Thus it was that the impenetrability, the mobility, and the impulsive force of bodies, and the laws of motion and of gravitation, were discovered. And to us it is enough that gravity does really exist, and act according to the laws which we have explained, and abundantly serves to account for all the motions of the celestial bodies, and of our sea. —Isaac Newton

What is the physical mediator that ties the Earth to the Sun allowing her to swing around? That is the question that everyone wants to know.  Einstein proposed his mystical spacetime structure with gravitational waves. The mechanics propose their discrete gravitons. The string theorists propose chain mail comprised of 1D strings.

As for me I hold to Gaede's Rope Hypothesis. He supposes all the atoms of the Sun are physically connected to all the atoms of the Earth by continuous rope like entity comprised of an electric thread and a magnetic thread. The EM ropes reconfigure to form and contain the atoms themselves. The Earth is bound to the Sun via the taut EM ropes and swings around the Sun preserving momentum. The length of the EM ropes is the distance between the the Earth and the Sun. In reality space has nothing to do with this interaction. Here is a visualization of the mechanism using Earth and the Moon:




The EM ropes generate gravity through numbers . . . 



When two spheres are close
together, the number of effective
ropes is greater than when they
are far apart. This mechanism
explains the inverse square factor
in Newton’s equation. (Gaede: from WGDE)

At great distances the EM ropes superimpose. The ropes do not tangle since EM rope is able to pass through EM rope, a property called light on light. At shorter distances the ropes fan out and there is stronger attraction. At even shorter distances even more ropes fan out. The EM ropes are also supposed to mediate light phenomenon: rectilinearly.

I have closely studied Gaede's EM Rope Hypothesis and Thread Theory in his book where he introduces his physics to the public called Why God Doesn't Exist (I know it is ironic for me). It is sound, sane and rational. His model of the atoms is genius. He built off of centuries of work done by selfless scientists. This is no pseudo-science or fringe theory. He is surgical with Newton's equations and dismantles quantum mechanics and relativity. It is a joy to read.

Physics has nothing to do with personal convictions, truth, evidence, proofs, mysteries, or even Sacred Scripture except in very rare instances. Ideally the observer is killed in a scientific context. Physics proposes rational assumptions and possible explanations. In the scientific Method you define, make a statement of facts in a rational assumption, explain rationally and conclude. Their is no provision for personal beliefs in physics but nonetheless when you go home after receiving the presentation you have to decide what you are going to hold to and use in life. I use Gaede's EM Rope Hypothesis and Thread Theory.

And now I will be bold. I am going to suggest that these physical mediators are perhaps implied by God in the same Book of Job. This is taken from a sequence where God speaks to Job. Job had these words of God recorded by his servants on bark:

​​​​​​​Can you tie the bands of the Pleiades, ​​​​​​or release the cords of Orion? (Job 38:)

The bands tying the cluster of stars called the Pleiades and the cords of drawing the star cluster Orion are the EM rope mediators connecting all the atoms of the Universe. The galaxies are connected via superimposed EM ropes. They either move away or move toward one another and this has nothing to do with space moving or gravity warping space. Gaede fairly-simply explains the redshift and blueshift of galaxies using his EM Rope hypothesis (find his articles online).

My tentative personal belief is that God created the single closed loop of thread from nothing and wove it the EM rope, atoms, stars and all physical bodies. Gaede is right in his assumption and theory. Modern mainstream cosmology and physics is wrong. And the Bible is inerrant in those very rare occasions where it proposes a physics.

You need ropes to pull a ship into harbor :)

Tuesday, October 1, 2013

A Tōhû wābōhû Thought Experiment

Imagine you are an inhabitant of the Middle East living about four thousand years ago. You've never seen an image captured by the space crafts in your life. But you have had the fortune of travelling all around the Middle East. You are familiar with all sorts of terrain. You've seen the lush pastures and vines of Israel but you have also been to the Arabian Peninsula and explored the edges of the Arabian Desert. You've seen the dread dunes of the Rub' al Khali. Maybe you've even seen or heard of the white deserts of Egypt. But your heart is in the Holy Land. You are a Hebrew. You speak a primitive mode of the Hebrew tongue and of course you love your God who led you out of Egypt.

One night you go to sleep. While asleep instead of dreaming a dream of fragmented memories you experience a vivid 3D movie. The first frame of the movie appears as something like this:


the Jovian Moon Ganymede

What would be your first impression? How would you first describe this object in your own tongue and in accord with your own experiences? Given your location and time is there even a word to describe something like this? What would you write about it?

If you have read some of this blog you know I am biased toward a prophetic interpretation of Genesis 1. I assume the sacred author had a vision, of course stimulated by God. Gen 1:2 is his basic description of the first frame of his prophetic 3D movie. Either in retrospect or while experiencing the movie he realized that the object he was looking at was Earth. I assume he saw Earth as if from orbit.

I don't want anyone to take the image too literally. I chose Ganymede as a model for the thought experiment. Ganymede is a good model since it has little or no atmosphere as well as a surface of icy H2O and silicate rock. It is also thought that a salt water ocean exists under the surface layers of ice water. Plus Ganymede is a black dwarf as is the Earth. So Ganymede is something like the Earth that the sacred author first saw in his prophetic movie. He may have had a closer view brought into focus as the vision unfolded.  Recall of the God induced vision led him to pen the famous tōhû wābōhû description.

My interpretive theory for the tōhû wābōhû concept is fairly simple. The Earth that the sacred author saw reminded him of a desert or wasteland. Only for him this was no ordinary desert terrain. For him deserts were regions of land with boundaries relating them to other terrains. But the wasteland that the Genesis 1 prophet saw had no boundaries other than the boundary of the entire object facing him. The entire face appeared bare, dry, without rain (no atmosphere), lifeless, inactive, uninhabited. And so he conceptualized an ultimate wasteland, a wasteland to end all wastelands, a strange wasteland. To him the Earth that he saw was a surreal desert, a super-desert, since he had no concept of an entire planetary surface barren before his eyes.

The ancient Hebrew has a manner of repeating a word so as to denote intensity or emphasis. An example of this is taken from Genesis 3:16. God uses the word rabah twice in succession to denote intensity: 


Increasing I increase your labor pains, etc. 

Word repetitions or so called 'figures of repetition' are not exclusive to ancient Hebrew practice, they are common to many languages. In fact there is a catalog of word repetitions in Greek.  Figures of repetition are employed to stimulate emphasis, clarity, amplification or emotions.  The Genesis 1 author did something similar only he got a little creative. He added a manner of mystique to his amplifier by changing the first letter and connecting via the Hebrew letter 'waw'.

Tohu can refer to a desert or a wasteland (see Tsumura: The Earth and Waters in Genesis 1 & 2: A Linguistic Investigation). The connected word bohu is a creative intensifier of the word tohu. Because of the strangeness of the object recalled from the vision the sacred author decided to invent the new word bohu so as to intensify and even mystify the referent of tohu. Instead of simply duplicating tohu so as to intensify, he decided to get a little fancy by changing a letter and connecting via the waw letter. So instead of tohu tohu we are given tohu wa-bohu. The modified intensifier, used only two other times in all of extant literature, discloses a mystic experience. My theory is that the sacred author invented the word in response to his prophetic vision. The word is later adopted by Jeremiah and Isaiah for use in their prophecies. Tohu wabohu or tohu and bohu paralleled in the same verse is only used in Hebrew Prophecies. It is a prophetic word.

The referent of tohu wa-bohu is the whole surface of the ancient Earth. In the second verse Earth and tohu wabohu have no parallel. Tohu wabohu is a description of the entire object facing the sacred author in the prophetic movie.  The Earth first appeared to be a desert world. The sacred author could have simply stated: And when Earth was an astonishing-desert. Tohu wabohu is the object-name of the subject Earth. It is the head descriptor or main descriptor of the Earth. The paralleled second and third clauses: "Darkness over a face of abyss and the Spirit of God hovering over the face of the waters" modify and add additional information to the main descriptive word: tohu wabohu and of course the main subject Earth.

I translate tohu wabohu as astonishing-desert or astonishing-wasteland in honor of Rashi's idea:


The word תֹהוּ is an expression of astonishment and desolation that a person wonders and is astonished at the emptiness therein. (Rashi Commentaries)

Rashi's idea fits in with my prophetic assumption.  The sacred author was astonished by what he saw. The Hebrew word tohu wabohu has wrapped up in it all the excitement and strangeness of seeing an object that has never been seen before. This is why it is a unique wonder of a word. I think Rashi has a good attitude toward this word. In the midst of all the solemnity and gravity read into this story I suggest there was a little playfulness and creativity happening in the mind of the sacred author when he wrote.  This suggestion fits the context. The transfiguration of the Earth is a joyful occasion. It must have been a joy to see it happen.  He even experienced the satisfaction of God described in "And God saw that is was good"!  So instead of going with desert wasteland, I went with astonishing-desert or astonishing-wasteland. Other ideas could be ultimate-desert/wasteland or super-desert/wasteland. 

These translation are concrete and I prefer it this way. They offer the reader an opportunity to visualize the setting. But there is a problem with this translation and interpretation. Scholar R. Gilboa raises the issue:


Suggestions for tohu as ‘desert’ (a geographical term often used for arid and uninhabited land OED) are implausible even impossible since we are told that everything is covered with waters. (p. 242, Intercourses in the Book of Genesis)

Gilboa seems to be biased toward a mythical chaos interpretation but this is a reasonable point. I would answer his valid objection by stating the ancient Earth could have been thought of a desert while covered with waters. This is what everyone should want to know. How is this possible? What was the Earth when the Spirit was sent forth so as to stimulate it? The sacred author knew that there was a water supply on the Earth's surface and under the surface. He saw waters erupt and wrap around into the the first essential modern atmosphere. Then he saw the Earth move close to the Sun so as to receive her light.

But before these courses of events happened the Earth was moving between stars. She was located far enough away from younger active stars so that her surface waters were not stimulated to liquid. Her surface was 'flooded' over with waters, but the waters were frozen. The waters in her subsurface remained liquid via the stimulation of her core. But on the outside she was an idle ice world. An ice world can be thought of and described as a desert or a wasteland especially to an ancient Middle Easterner who has never seen one before!!! He was truly astonished!


Now you may ask what is the Earth? What was her history prior to the Divine phenomena recorded in Genesis 1? How did she get her water supply? I've already said many times in this blog that I hold to the assumption that the Earth is an old dark star or a black dwarf. I reject solar nebular hypothesis and the Big-Bang with its time constraint. I think the Earth naturally transitioned to her long black dwarf phase from a young active phase such as our Sun. She is supposed to have begun as a star magnitudes larger than our Sun. She was fit to fuse and compress a sold iron core. Prior to her stimulation and transfiguration with God she cooled to a phase where she may have synthesized H & O to H2O at her outer layers. Or she may have assimilated H2O by swinging through dense interstellar medium in her galactic rotation.

Planets are old cooling stars. Some of these are captured or guided into orbit of newer active stars via their heliospheres. Once they are guided in they swing around the mother star by the EM mediators connecting star to star. But our planet was not captured. It was placed in orbit around the Sun by God in the course it's transfiguration that God initiated perhaps just beyond the Sun's heliosphere.

The beauty of the story is that our history began with God and Heaven and the Earth, alone beyond the Sun's influence. Everything about the Earth as it now is: is unique.  The Earth is elect, meaning God chose it out of gazillions.  He made a connection with it by emitting the Spirit, and he renewed her face!