April 12th

Lunatic Fringe or Legitimate Threat?

Canst thou by searching find out God? canst thou find out the Almighty unto perfection? It is as high as heaven; what canst thou do? deeper than hell; what canst thou know?

(Job 11:7-8) KJV

Despite the self-evident truth of empirical observations regarding elliptical planetary orbits, mainstream science (SciPop) promotes a rationalization for them that has no physical cause.

The SciPop explanation for Kepler’s laws isn’t a testable hypothesis either which means that SciPop is unscientific. In this context, let’s consider a couple of quotes from members of the Twitter community.

We all have the same evidence. Our choice of paradigm determines what we think it’s evidence of.

Matty’s Razor

Matty is at the forefront of the lunatic fringe yet thinks that he possesses some kind of divine truth.

You’re on the lunatic fringe on this one. The very far reaches of it. It must be comfortable out there?

– Twitter

Some kind of divine truth? it happens to be the Bible. Your normal hotel dresser drawer King James Bible divine truth. It’s not remarkable, unusual, or in any way particular to us. Although, it turns out that it doesn’t have to be the KJV.

Has Matty’s Paradigm graduated from the lunatic fringe to being a legitimate threat?

– Question to ponder

Building on a Rock

Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:

(Matthew 7:24) KJV

Let’s look at the big picture. We (that’s me and the Holy spirit) have openly challenged the Twitter, Facebook, Instagram and LinkedIn communities to prove heliocentricity. Since December 25, 2015 no proof of heliocentricity has been presented. Everything which has been submitted as proof can easily be shown to require assumptions which cause it to be circular reasoning.

It Fell Not

And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock.

(Matthew 7:25) KJV

We’re still here. Matty’s Paradigm is a thing. Despite the fact that the @matty_lawrence and @Janitor_Who Twitter accounts were suspended, repeated attempts by big tech to shut down our website, and hardened opposition from local churches. Get this: after asking for their help in starting an end times revival that will save a billion souls..

It ‘aint no thing.

Mob Rules

When you defend yourself against 20+ people who’re all calling you stupid at the same time you get suspended.

Something about algorithms.

Faith is believing in something that you can’t see, because of evidence.

– Faith, definition

The House upon the Sand

And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand:

(Matthew 7:26) KJV

We can ponder this question and look at some sample interactions in order to help us judge which is true.

Garbage In = Garbage Out

One of the members of the Twitter community went to the trouble of coding their own planetary orbit simulator in an attempt to refute our position that Johannes Kepler didn’t understand his 1st law. He is referring to us in this quote:

Some people find counter-intuitive that the planets follow elliptical orbits with just one object in one focus. Some of these people are really vocal saying Kepler was wrong (or even that Kepler didn’t understand his own laws). What we are going to do is to trace the trajectory of an object subject to a gravitational field, and look if it traces an ellipse.


The planetary orbit simulator describes an effect, not a cause. Making a computer model of a desired outcome in order to prove a point is inductive circular reasoning. Computers only know what they’re told. Computers aren’t capable of independent original work. Computer models can only ever produce a result that is a restatement of the assumptions that were used to code the model. If you tell a computer to plot an ellipse around a single focus, don’t declare a philosophical victory when it does, it’s incapable of any other outcome. In computer lingo it is known as: garbage in = garbage out.

The reason for creation is the manifestation of sentient life with free will.

– The Reason for Creation

Cause or No Cause?

Kepler’s 1st Law is the Achilles Heel of SciPop because, even though it’s empirical, no known cause for it has been identified. Nothing beyond speculation that is no better than SciFi. We use it as an example of when faith is necessary in science. It goes like this:

What is Faith?

  • Start by asking this question:
    • In Kepler’s 1st law,
    • what’s the source of gravity at focus 2?

Now it doesn’t actually matter what response we get, because whatever it is it’s a statement of faith. The standard explanation is that there’s nothing at focus 2, that’s just the second focus of the ellipse. This is the same as saying that planetary orbits are elliptical because they’re ellipses. It’s a denial of the need for a cause. It’s also circular reasoning.

Conic Sections

Another stock response to the Kepler second focus question is this one:

For our Kepler skeptic the 2-body problem should be enough. The analytical solution shows the orbits are conical sections: ellipses, parabolas or hyperbolas, depending on the initial conditions. For the speeds and positions of the planets of our solar system, it yields ellipses with very low eccentricity (thus very close to being circles).


Once again this is more of a rhetorical ploy than an actual solution. Yes, if we cut through a cone at an angle I will get an elliptical (conic) section, but what, at the scale of the solar system, is the physical cause for this effect? There still isn’t one. What cut through a cone the size of the solar system? Nothing. Where’s the evidence that planets were captured by the gravity of the sun? There isn’t any, it’s an inductive rationalization. Why aren’t the planetary orbits degrading as they slide into the sun? It’s not a testable hypothesis.

The reason for creation is the manifestation of sentient life with free will.

– The Reason for Creation

Great was the Fall of It

And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it.

(Matthew 7:27) KJV

Unless, that is, you count our hasbeen with spandex. Incidentally, this is the only time that a hasbeen with a thing for spandex is socially acceptable.

No, marbles on spandex isn’t a test of the hypothesis that planets from outside the solar system were caught by the gravity of the sun. It’s a test of the hypothesis that a hasbeen university lecturer can impress young boys and girls and, for a brief moment, feel like they’re really cool. It’s sleight-of-hand designed to help you casually miss the fact that the SciPop community is making you take a leap of faith.

Elliptical vs. Cardioid

Here’s another problem:

planetary orbits aren’t elliptical, they’re cardioid.

Planetary orbits are only elliptical in the theoretical heliocentric model. The empirical reality is that the epicycles in planetary orbits cause them to be cardioid.

Astonished at His Doctrine

And it came to pass, when Jesus had ended these sayings, the people were astonished at his doctrine: For he taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes.

(Matthew 7:28-29) KJV

In Matty’s Paradigm we have a simple and elegant explanation for why planetary orbits are elliptical: The Earth is f1 and the Sun is f2. In this way the cosmological model of Matty’s Paradigm not only accounts for all scientific observations but it fulfills the requirements of Kepler’s 1st Law, something that heliocentricity doesn’t do.

What’s remarkable is that, in the time that we have been defending it, our Geocentrospheric model has become so robust and unshakable that we have been able to develop a Biblical theory of gravitation which combines a unified field theory with the plan of redemption. We went on to develop the Sophia Proton thought experiment and resolved the Bible with particle physics.

The purpose of creation is to bring about the permanent physical separation of light from darkness, day from night, good from evil.

– The Purpose of Creation

Every Scribe

Then said he unto them, Therefore every scribe which is instructed unto the kingdom of heaven is like unto a man that is an householder, which bringeth forth out of his treasure things new and old.

(Matthew 13:52) KJV

Here’s a conundrum: our calling as a scribe is the result of a deductive process which goes like this:

  • What are We?
    • We can’t be a Pastor,
    • We can’t be a Priest,
    • We can’t be a Prophet*,
    • We weren’t taught any of this by anybody.
  • However, we have work to do, which we’re doing.
    • IF we’re bringing out new doctrine, for instance:
      1. A Biblical plan for particle physics,
      2. Nucleosynthesis on the 1st day,
      3. The inception of gravity on the 2nd day,
      4. Gravitational time dilation,
      5. A unified field theory which harmonizes with the plan of redemption.
    • THEN do we fulfill the criteria expressed in Matthew 13:52?

*It’s starting to look increasingly like we’re a prophet, possibly with the spirit of Elijah. We just came out as a Sorcerer and published a spell. We’re bringing out new things and old. That’s the best we have been able to do to discern what our calling may be.

  • IF we’re a scribe as per Matthew 13:52,
    • AND our doctrine refutes all of SciPop since Copernicus,
    • BUT Jesus spoke with authority and NOT as the scribes,
  • THEN our doctrine can’t be of ourselves,
    • BECAUSE we don’t have any authority,
    • THEREFORE it has to be of divine origin.

Phew. That’s what happens when we ponder.

Our passage today is ironic. It expresses an absolute truth: heaven is above and hell is below. The only way for this to be literally true is if the Earth is spherical and located at the center of a spherical cosmos. The passage from Job is ironic, “can you by searching find out God?” because it was spoken by Zophar the Naamathite who was as wrong about Job as you could possibly be. The implication from his question is that no, you can’t find out God, therefore you might as well give up. This aptly summarizes the situation in SciPop. However, we’re not going to give up just because some idiot tells us that we can’t figure it out.

Today’s image is from John Berkley’s space art makes me nostalgic for a future that never was.


  1. Call upon the name of Jesus Christ,
    • believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead,
  2. confess your sin.

Read through the Bible in a year

Reading planApril 12
Linear2 Kings 24-25
1 Chronicles 1
Chronological1 Samuel 15-17
– Read 3 chapters every day and 5 chapters on Sundays

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: