Rolled Together as a Scroll

And all the host of heaven shall be dissolved, and the heavens shall be rolled together as a scroll: and all their host shall fall down, as the leaf falleth off from the vine, and as a falling fig from the fig tree.

(Isaiah 34:4) KJV

Is the phrase “the heavens shall be rolled together as a scroll” flowery poetic language or accurate physics? If the firmament is a rigid sphere of crystal on the edge of space, it’s accurate physics.

In Matty’s Paradigm we understand the three heavens that are referred to in scripture to be:

The Three Heavens

  1. Open firmament, atmosphere or sky where birds fly,
  2. celestial realm, cosmos, observable universe or space where the stars are set in their courses,
  3. firmament, sea of glass or heliopause the location of God’s throne.

If the third heaven is a rigid sheet of crystal, like a sheet of hammered metal, then it can, as the passage says, be rolled up like a scroll. Any interpretation of the Bible that doesn’t have a crystalline firmament relegates this passage to flowery poetic language. For us it confirms Hypothesis 22.

Predictive Testable Hypothesis 22

  • IF the Holy Spirit is the power of God to inspire human writers,
    • AND the physics of the universe has been written in scripture so that it’s
      1. obvious and
      2. invisible,
  • THEN phrases or words that look like chemistry, physics, biology or geology should be treated as if they are chemistry, physics, biology or geology,
    • AND the science will be congruent with the scriptural context.

However, there are more profound physical ramifications of this being true. One possible argument against a stationary Earth that doesn’t rotate is that there’s some very simple arithmetic that shows that anything past the orbit of Neptune would have to be traveling faster than the speed of light in order to circle the Earth every day. From our perspective there are several ways to handle this apparent difficulty.

  1. Firstly, it’s not as difficult a problem as science would have you believe, because the stars aren’t distant suns and galaxies. Those minute specks in the sky really are minute specks in the sky; they’re reflective rocks in the Kuiper Belt.
  2. Secondly, the distances to planetary bodies are calculated, not measured, and the calculations are based on making assumptions. The assumption of heliocentricity means that the geometry used is a triangle with a base 2 AU wide. This vastly inflates the distances to stellar objects.
  3. Thirdly, something called gravitational time dilation means that time is traveling faster the further away from the center of the Earth you are. Therefore the apparent speed is divided by the time dilation factor for the objects orbital radius and nothing is traveling faster than the speed of light.
  4. The fourth reason is from the pages of Sir Isaac Newton’s Principia Mathematica. We’re making the case that the universe bounded by a rigid sphere of crystal upon which God’s throne is set. This is a massive body. It’s a source of gravitational interaction. The stars aren’t going faster than the speed of light because relative to the firmament they’re at rest.

It is a property of rest, that bodies really at rest do rest in respect to one another. And therefore as it is possible, that in the remote regions of the fixed stars, or perhaps far beyond them, there may be some body absolutely at rest; but impossible to know, from the position of bodies to one another in our regions whether any of these do keep the same position to that remote body; it follows that absolute rest cannot be determined from the position of bodies in our regions.

– Sir Isaac Newton
Principia Mathmatica p. 85

The argument against this is that the gravitational force inside a hollow sphere shell of uniform areal mass density is everywhere equal to zero, but that’s not a testable hypothesis. It’s based on the assumption that gravity is a property of space-time. If gravity is a field emitted from the center of the Earth then the argument is irrelevant, because the hollow sphere shell doesn’t have uniform areal mass density. There’s a nice conundrum wrapped up in a paradox for you.

The answer to the question of what holds the stars in the sky? has been mankind’s pursuit for millennia. The advent of the popular science paradigm (SciPop), thanks to Galileo, seemed to solve this problem by making the tiny specks in the sky into vast suns and galaxies that are light years away and so impossibly huge that the Earth is insignificant. Yet the problem remained.

It’s estimated from current models of the observable universe that about 80% of the mass of the universe is missing. This has caused science to dream up more and more fanciful ways to have some force or source of gravity that keeps the universe in its present state. Right now we are at black holes and dark matter, but trust us, SciPop will make up anything it wants whenever it needs to. Black holes and dark matter are a mathematical prediction necessary to maintain stability in a fictional paradigm. You have Stephen Hawking to thank for the fictionalization of science. There is no need for SciFi any more.

So here’s the spooky part: When the heavens roll up like a scroll there will no longer be a source of gravity holding the stars in place and they’ll fall to Earth. This is accurate physics and it’s a positive result in Hypothesis 22.

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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: