Clickbank Products

Was Jesus invented through ancient myths?


Where in the World?


The Bible bends all natural laws and rules because it is a supernatural book.
It cannot POSSIBLY be understood by a natural mind focused upon natural understanding. That is what Nicodemus discovered when he came to Christ trying to understand, with a natural mind, supernatural events and teachings.

Because scientists being naturally skeptical, have minds trapped in the box of the five physical senses they cannot focus therefore on the supernatural aspects to understand the biblical 'Birdseye view' of God, who sees things from OUTSIDE time and space, the box that we as finite are limited within .

There was a reason why Jesus said you must be born again. It is a SPIRITUAL rebirth [Both of Mind and Spirit] that is needed to release the hidden evidence of things we cannot witness from inside this physical 'BOX' universe.

I KNOW from personal experience that the Bible is true but I cannot convince you, you must find the truth yourself. THAT'S HOW LIFE WORKS!

Spend less time developing your skeptical natural mind and THAT'S WHAT YOUR DOING, and more time focusing on what Christ taught and you will discover as I have, the truth. You can only interpret the Universe through the shaded lens of your own understanding!
There was an error in this gadget

Monday, February 11, 2013

There's always something-part II By: Thomas Lindley

Part II

Tom is a mathematician working as a technical consultant for NASA and commercial companies. He researches and writes about purely scientific proof that the entity described as God in the Holy Bible, the Qur'an, and the Tanakh must exist. 
Last time, we began a discussion of existence. The object of our discussion is still to determine which of the following is correct:
(1) The universe has always existed
(2) The universe came from nothing

(3) The universe came from something

To that end, we continue this discussion of the universe with the impact of gravity.

The sudden appearance of the Universe indicates that the Universe was once much smaller.

Gravity is what holds the planets, moons, asteroids, comets, stars, galaxies, gas, and dust, so that there is a universe. It holds us to the Earth. Gravity has the same influence on the universe as it has on stars.

After the nuclear fuel is exhausted within a star, gravitation compresses the star surface inward towards its center. As the star begins to contract, its mass becomes increasingly concentrated into an ever smaller volume.
Gravity behaves in a special way when the amount of matter is large, and the occupying volume is small. Stars provide the pattern for what happens when there is a large mass in a small volume.

The effects of gravity become increasingly pronounced. If the star's final mass exceeds a value that is twice the mass of our Sun, Sol (that is, the final mass is more than two solar masses), gravitational attraction increases to infinity.

What do we mean by infinity?
We use numbers to count, in terms of the sequence (1,2,3,…N), to determine quantity. There is, however, a special number, υ. The number, υ, is different than all the other previous numbers. If we continue to count from any other number before υ, we will eventually reach the number υ. So, we call the number υ, the greatest finite number. When we add one to any of the natural numbers: (1, 2, 3,…, N), we get the next higher number.
This is not true for υ.
When we add one to υ, we get infinity.
Gravitational attraction increases to infinity while, at the same time, it shrinks the entire mass of material it’s acting upon.
The gravity is so intense that a beam of light directed from the star will fall back to that star.
The star is now a region where matter collapses to infinite density. Based on Einstein's equations, the radius of that region can be calculated. It’s called the gravitational radius for the item. That region called the Schwarzschild Radius, if the object is not rotating. It is the Kerr Radius when the object is rotating. Every item has this region at which it becomes a black hole.
When the collapsing star passes its Schwarzschild radius, it vanishes because its escape velocity exceeds the speed of light. Nothing, not even light itself, can escape. Hence, this region is called a black hole.
At the center of the black hole, is the location of the matter that is crushed to infinite density. This location is called a singularity.
The radius of our Sun is about 43,000,000 (43 million) miles. Based on its mass, the Schwarzschild radius is about 2 miles. So, if we shrank the Sun to a radius of about 2 miles, it would collapse to a black hole.
A black hole whose mass equals 50 million (50,000,000) suns has a Schwarzschild radius of about 93 million (93,000,000) miles. That is a black hole with a circumference equal to the earth’s orbit around the Sun.
The radius of the universe is about 14 x109 (fourteen billion) light years. Its mass is 3 x1053 kilograms. Its Schwarzschild radius is about 5 x109 (five billion) light years. If it was not rotating, it was a black hole at about a third of what its radius is now. Its Kerr radius is about 2 x109 (two billion) light years. The universe was probably rotating, so it was a black hole at about an eighth of what its radius is now.

Isaac Newton proved that an object at rest or in uniform motion will stay that way unless acted upon by an external force. If you don’t think this is true, when driving, try stopping your car by pushing on the back seat.
 That force from pushing on the back seat is internal. So, pay up your insurance and make out your will before you try it. Pushing on the brake pedal, however acts on the tires within in turn act on the ground. The tires acting on the ground is an external force.

Since the universe exists as it is today, we recognize that the behavior of the Universe is the same as the gravitational collapse of massive stars. The gravitational collapse process can only be reversed if there is an infinite force. This infinite force is necessary to overcome the infinite gravitational attraction of the black hole process, the gravitational collapse.
This infinite force had to be external to the Universe, not within it.
We have the problem of two different sets of attributes:
Among the attributes in the list that describes our universe based on present day observation, we have:

(1) Contains all that is material

(2) It is expanding

Among the attributes in the list that describes our universe based on the past history observation of gravity, we have:

(a) Contains all that is material

(b) Can’t expand (because it was a black hole)

(Remember: Nothing, not even light itself, can escape from a black hole. When the collapsing star passes its gravitational radius, it vanishes because its escape velocity exceeds the speed of light.)

(c) Disintegrates due to being a black hole

The two descriptions are opposites of each other. The universe is expanding. The universe, however, should have never expanded. It was a collapsed object, a black hole.

Stephen Hawking has proved that a collapsed object eventually disintegrates. It does not continue to exist. It disappears.

The Universe should not exist. It should have disappeared. It should not have expanded. We should not be here.
We are now in a position to eliminate one of the following former possibilities:

(1) The universe has always existed

(2) The universe came from nothing

(3) The universe came from something

From our discussion, “(1) The universe has always existed” cannot be true.
So, we have:
(2) The universe came from nothing
(3) The universe came from something

To establish whether, “(2) The universe came from nothing, or “(3) The universe came from something”, is true, we examine opposites and why they can never be the same in, There’s Always Something, Part III.
Some References
1. Penrose, R (1965). Gravitational Collapse and Space-Time Singularities, Physical Review Letters 14, pp 57-59.
2. Hawking, Stephen (1996). The Illustrated, A Brief History of Time, Bantam Books, New York.
3. Copi, I. and Cohen, C. (2001), Introduction to Logic, Prentice Hall, New York
4. Lindley, Thomas (2008). Eternal Origin, Volume II, Observation, A Teacher, Xlibris Corporation, New Jersey

No comments:

Post a Comment

Please, if you are a skeptic, DO NOT swear or name call, if you cannot be civil then your comment will not be seen. If your evidence is that weak, then my point is made before you comment!

Popular Posts

About Me

My photo

Before you look at the links below know this about me, I do not know everything about anything, I know only what God has revealed to me.

Proving God exists CANNOT be done for the person who is not open to hearing and seeing the evidence as God sees it. Faith is the KEY to releasing all the evidence contained in creation, in man's heart and his mind. Without FAITH no one can ever please God so to throw away faith as unimportant destroys our receptivity to the evidence!

I was a hypocrite, a sinner and a fool, sometimes even as a believer but as long as God is in control I'm forgiven and healed of every form of human shortcoming. Nothing can stand before the evidence contained in Faith.....NOTHING!

Overall rating

It Stands Unrefuted by Scientists ANYWHERE!

The following reports are in one of three formats. To view the ones in PDF format, use
Adobe Acrobat Reader. To view the ones in RTF format, you may use MS Word.

Reports Dealing with Radiohalos

  1. Gentry, R.V. 1968. "Fossil Alpha-Recoil Analysis of Certain Variant Radioactive Halos." Science 160, 1228. HTML PDF
  2. Gentry, R.V. 1970. "Giant Radioactive Halos: Indicators of Unknown Alpha-Radioactivity?" Science 169, 670. HTML PDF
  3. Gentry, R.V. 1971. "Radiohalos: Some Unique Pb Isotope Ratios and Unknown Alpha Radioactivity." Science 173, 727. PDF
  4. Gentry, R.V. 1973. "Radioactive Halos." Annual Review of Nuclear Science 23, 347. PDF
  5. Gentry, R.V. 1974. "Radiohalos in Radiochronological and Cosmological Perspective." Science 184, 62. HTML PDF
  6. Gentry, R.V. 1975. Response to J.H. Fremlin's Comments on "Spectacle Halos." Nature 258, 269.
  7. Gentry, R.V. 1977. "Mystery of the Radiohalos." Research Communications NETWORK, Breakthrough Report, February 10, 1977. HTML PDF
  8. Gentry, R.V. 1978a. "Are Any Unusual Radiohalos Evidence for SHE?" International Symposium on Superheavy Elements, Lubbock, Texas. New York: Pergamon Press. PDF
  9. Gentry, R.V. 1978b. "Implications on Unknown Radioactivity of Giant and Dwarf Haloes in Scandinavian Rocks." Nature 274, 457. HTML PDF
  10. Gentry, R.V. 1978c. "Reinvestigation of the α Activity of Conway Granite." Nature 273, 217. HTML PDF
  11. Gentry, R.V. 1979. "Time: Measured Responses." EOS Transactions of the American Geophysical Union 60, 474. PDF RTF
  12. Gentry, R.V. 1980. "Polonium Halos." EOS Transactions of the American Geophysical Union 61, 514. HTML PDF
  13. Gentry, R.V. 1982. Letters. Physics Today 35, No. 10, 13.
  14. Gentry, R.V. 1983a. Letters. Physics Today 36, No. 4, 3.
  15. Gentry, R.V. 1983b. Letters. Physics Today 36, No. 11, 124.
  16. Gentry, R.V. 1984a. "Radioactive Halos in a Radiochronological and Cosmological Perspective." Proceedings of the 63rd Annual Meeting of the Pacific Division, American Association for the Advancement of Science 1, 38. HTML PDF
  17. Gentry, R.V. 1984c. Letters. Physics Today 37, No. 4, 108.
  18. Gentry, R.V. 1984d. Letters. Physics Today 37, No. 12, 92.
  19. Gentry, R.V. 1987a. "Radioactive Halos: Implications for Creation." Proceedings of the First International Conference on Creationism, Vol. II, 89. HTML
  20. Gentry, R.V. 1998. "Fingerprints of Creation." Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal 12, 287. HTML
  21. Gentry, R.V. et al. 1973. "Ion Microprobe Confirmation of Pb Isotope Ratios and Search for Isomer Precursors in Polonium Radiohalos." Nature 244, 282. HTML PDF
  22. Gentry, R.V. et al. 1974. "'Spectacle' Array of Po-210 Halo Radiocentres in Biotite: A Nuclear Geophysical Enigma." Nature 252, 564. HTML PDF
  23. Gentry, R.V. et al. 1976a. "Radiohalos and Coalified Wood: New Evidence Relating to the Time of Uranium Introduction and Coalification." Science 194, 315. HTML PDF

Reports Dealing with Helium and Lead Retention in Zircons

  1. Gentry, R.V. 1984b. "Lead Retention in Zircons" (Technical Comment). Science 223, 835.
  2. Gentry, R.V. et al. 1982a. "Differential Lead Retention in Zircons: Implications for Nuclear Waste Containment." Science 216, 296. HTML PDF
  3. Gentry, R.V. et al. 1982b. "Differential Helium Retention in Zircons: Implications for Nuclear Waste Containment." Geophysical Research Letters 9, 1129. HTML PDF

Reports Dealing with Astronomy and Cosmology

  1. Gentry, R. V. 1997. "A New Redshift Interpretation." Modern Physics Letters A, Vol. 12, No. 37, 2919. (This paper was also posted in 1998 on the Los Alamos National Laboratory E-Print arXive: astro-ph/9806280.) HTML PDF
  2. Gentry, R. V. 1998. "The Genuine Cosmic Rosetta." This paper was posted on what was then the Los Alamos National Laboratory E-Print arXive: gr-gc/9806061. HTML PDF
  3. Gentry, R. V. 1998. "The New Redshift Interpretation Affirmed." This paper was posted on what was then the Los Alamos National Laboratory E-Print arXive: physics/9810051. HTML PDF
  4. Gentry, R. V. 2003. "Discovery of a Major Contradiction in Big Bang Cosmology Points to the New Cosmic Center Universe Model." CERN Preprint, Ext-2003-021. HTML PDF
  5. Gentry, R. V. 2003. "New Cosmic Center Universe Model Matches Eight of Big Bang's Major Predictions Without the F-L Paradigm." CERN Preprint, Ext-2003-022. PDF
  6. Gentry, R. V. 2004. "Collapse of Big Bang Cosmology and the Emergence of the New Cosmic Center Model of the Universe." Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 56, 4. HTML PDF

The first three astronomy and cosmology papers may also be obtained by going to the the web sites of either Los Alamos National Laboratory or is currently adminstered by Cornell University.

NOTE: For more information about the Big Bang's fatal flaws and "The Great 21st Century Scientific Watergate," please check out our sister site,

1987 Challenge to the National Academy of Sciences

  • Our open letter of March 24, 1987, to Dr. Frank Press, president of the National Academy of Sciences. Dr. Press claimed that "evidence for creationism" has been scientifically invalidated, though he well knew this has not been the case for the polonium-halo evidence. Our letter once again requests him and other evolutionists to publicly explain how the polonium-halo evidence for creation has indeed been invalidated, this time on April 13 at the University of Tennessee. We suggest that Dr. Stephen Gould be the first one to speak on behalf of the academy, given his strong language denouncing the term, "creation science." HTML GIF

  • Our Knoxville Sentinel ad on April 12, 1987, announcing our presentation on the evening of the 13th at the University of Tennessee. Included in the ad was a copy of the above open letter to Dr. Press. HTML GIF

  • A press release from the Society for Creation Science, announcing the reading of Dr. Press's written reply that evening, April 13, 1987, at the University of Tennessee. HTML GIF

Year 2000 Challenge to the National Academy of Sciences
  • Our letter of March 22, 2000, to Dr. Bruce Alberts, president of the National Academy of Sciences. Dr. Alberts claimed that evidence for special creation has been experimentally falsified.

  • This letter requests the Academy to publicly explain at Wichita State University on March 30, 2000, why it has chosen to reject the published evidence for the Genesis creation, evidence which after more than twenty-five years still stands unrefuted in the open scientific literature. HTML

Did you know that scientific evidence abounds to support the biblical accounts of creation and the flood?

Were you aware that reports outlining this evidence passed peer review, and were published in the open scientific literature?

Have you heard that, decades later, this evidence still stands unrefuted by the scientific community?

Watch a real debate about God right here!

Professors Richard Dawkins and John Lennox go head-to-head once again for another remarkable match of intellect.
This time, the same two Oxford Professors who debated in Birmingham's 'God Delusion' Debate are at it again on their home turf at the site of the famed 1860 Evolution debate between Huxley and Wilberforce.