Rotating universe

S

Sheshbazzar

Guest
According to the books of Revelation & Ezekiel, we live in a rotating universe. By rotation I mean time loops. Those who live on earth i.e., see not the Spirit / drink the blood of Christ fall asleep in the dream of these 6 days only to dream that same dream again & again. Those who live in heaven wake up in the 7th day. But they blink their eyes & dream 2 dreams. In the one their are overcome by the Beast. In the other, at the next blink of their eyes, they rule that Beast with a rod of iron. Both dreams are one in the 6th day: the marriage supper of the Lamb. Cf. Ezekiel 39.1-4, Revelation 19.17-21, Ezekiel 39.17-20 & Revelation 20.7-10. Hint: Gog & Magog, all the fowls were filled with their flesh.

The 7th day is the eternal Son, the cube. The 6 days are its faces, spacetime.

And he that talked with me had a golden reed to measure the city, and the gates thereof, and the wall thereof. And the city lieth foursquare, and the length is as large as the breadth: and he measured the city with the reed, twelve thousand furlongs. The length and the breadth and the height of it are equal. (Revelation 21.15, 16)
Click to expand...
And there was given me a reed like unto a rod: and the angel stood, saying, Rise, and measure the temple of God, and the altar, and them that worship therein. But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months (Revelation 11.1, 2)
Click to expand...

Those who live on earth, in the 6 faces literally tread under foot the cube of heaven.
 
Nice cosmology.... but not quite in sych with what physical cosmology (the science of the empirical universe) teaches. Why teach such things that fly in the face of scoience and physics?
 
radarmark said:
Nice cosmology.... but not quite in sych with what physical cosmology (the science of the empirical universe) teaches. Why teach such things that fly in the face of scoience and physics?
Click to expand...

See the rotating universe of Kurt Gödel.
 
The Law of Moses is a theory of sin, it describes how entropy works. In regard to entropy & recurring cosmology consider "Disturbing Implications of a Cosmological Constant" by L. Dyson, M. Kleban & L. Susskind:

Let S be the final thermodynamic entropy of the gas. Then on time scales of order Tr ∼ exp S the system will undergo Poincare recurrences. Such a recurrence can bring all the particles back into the corner of the room. On such long time scales the second law of thermodynamics does not prevent rare events, which effectively reverse the direction of entropy change. Obviously, the recurrence allows the entire process of cosmology to begin again, although with a slightly different initial condition. What is more, the sequence of recurrences will stretch into the infinite past and future
Click to expand...

The Bible reveals this from time immemorial.
 
It is consistent with the theory of relativity. And there are other considerations suggesting no mere possibility but actuality. That something is not provable certainly doesn't mean that it is disprovable or do you believe that we have a complete cosmology? But if by provability you mean empirical spacetime evidence then no physics whatsoever are provable because we shall never have a complete survey.
 
Yep, but so are multiverses (which exclude the possibility of the rotating universe). Theories are confirmed or verified, never proved (see Popper and Einstein and Gödel for various discussions of this). However, they can be disproved (like the famous EPR experiment).

The point is that fringe science (multiverses, rotating universe, cyclic cosmology, quantum consciousness) deal with issues that are not empirically provable or disprovable. Don’t get me wrong, they may be some day (the way EPR or the cosmological constant were). Higgs theory was one of these non-decidable issues until the proof was found. That is now empirical spacetime physics works.

The empirical sciences (because the universe could always be different) are never true in a hard (100% certain) sense. One must decide which Scylla or Charybdis to pay attention to. At this point in time most physicists believe in the multiverse theory, not the Copenhagen or rotating universe or a Machian universe or a block universe.

The issue can be seen as a number line from zero (absolutely false) to one (absolutely true). These alternatives lay somewhere in-between.
 
They might have been Aup, but they're Baaaaaack! What little I understand of quantum theory (which is very little indeed), there were actually a number of quantum theories, each based on a reality of 10 dimensions. No one could figure out why there were so many theories when there should just be one. Then someone thought to add an 11th dimension; one of infinite universes; and dang if it turns out all those multiple theories were really just one theory after all.

I think I got that right anyway.............
 
Aup,

Not really, it it what most physicists claim to hold, just do a google scholar search on "multiverse" since 2013 (over 1,000 hits).
 
If that is the case, and if universes rise out of absolute 'nothing', then the difference between existence and non-existence in quite hazy?
 
Radarmark, where do these infinite number of universes may get their energy from? Just by expansion of space?
 
Each "universe" in the "multiverse theory" just is. Like this universe, it began as (probably) a creation-from-nothing quantum event. Remember, the Heisenberg uncertainty relation allows the creation of something (energy-matter) from nothing at all.

The mass-energy of each multiverse is created (or kind of sort of replicated) with each quantum choice. For instance, each time a quantum experiment occurs, both (or some number of possible) outcomes is actualized as a separate universe.

The best explanations are (1) Multiverse - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia , (2) Many-worlds interpretation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia , (3) multiverse , and (4) Many-Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy).

The first two are simple wiki articles, the third is a pretty good scientific explanation, and the last is a philosophical discussion.

I must now admit that I believe in none of them. I believe that the Copenhagen Interpretation of Bohr, Heisenberg, Wigner, Jaynes, Shimony, and Stapp as modified by Cushing and all. Gets complex… merely a matter of well-argued personal preference. The proliferations of universes, each of which cannot communicate with any other universe, seems to me a clear violation of Ockham ’s razor.

However, developing and verifying an alternative theory (like the Copenhagen Interpretation) is extremely difficult.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top