# Rainbows Genesis Science Refraction Noah

As waves travel into the denser medium, they slow down and wavelength decreases.

Part of the wave travels faster for longer causing the wave to turn.

The wave is slower but the wavelength is shorter meaning frequency remains the same.

Think of it this way:

The source (whatever) send out a wave every second.

So they will keep coming at one a second.

That is the frequency, 1 Hz.

Just doing something that affects the wavelength of the waves after they have been sent won’t affect the frequency, basically they will keep arriving at one per second because they are one second apart.

Changing the wavelength differentially along the length of a wavefront is a trick that can make it turn a bit of a corner – refraction, but that has no effect on the frequency.

The colour of light is an effect of its wavelength upon the eye. Therefore differential refraction causes the light to spread into a rainbow as different wavelengths refract by different angles.

In this diagram, the right hand side of the incoming wave slows down before the left hand side does. This causes the wave to change direction.

Credit to BBC bitesize for the diagram and some of the explanation of refraction –

https://www.bbc.com/bitesize/guides/z9bwpbk/revision/2

Now listen up ‘cos this is important…
The refractive index of air changes as humidity increases.

Liquid water (eg raindrops) refractive index is equal to a number which is 1.33 and for the humid air the number is generally in the 1-1.33 range. Yes that’s right, it can be 1.33, exactly the same as the water. When the numbers are the same you don’t get any refraction, so no rainbow. So if the air is very humid, no rainbows.

Genesis 2:5–6:

When no bush of the field was yet in the land and no small plant of the field had yet sprung up—for the Lord God had not caused it to rain on the land, and there was no man to work the ground, and a mist was going up from the land and was watering the whole face of the ground.

So pre-flood the air was very humid so there were no rainbows, then the fountains of the deep opened and the huge amount of dust that would have been sent into the atmosphere by these enormous space-reaching fountains like those we see on Jupiter’s moon Europa.

These fountains were caused in the case of Earth by the collapse of the outer crust/upper mantle onto the lower mantle, forcing down onto the underground ocean 350-450 miles down that could only then escape by fountaining out at incredible pressure upwards like a volcano – the remnant of which underground ocean is now trapped into a layer of rock called ringwoodite, and is of course some of the water now also exists above ground as the familiar oceans such as the Atlantic and Pacific that cover 3/4 off the world, a covering that was not formerly present.

This eruption of water would have provided a huge injection of dust into the atmosphere, giving nucleation sites to form droplets, clouds and eventually rain. Water vapour needs little specks of dust to form droplets. This means that water collects together out of solution, making the air less humid, allowing than for rainbows to form.

Hebrews 11:7:

By faith Noah, being warned by God concerning events as yet unseen, in reverent fear constructed an ark for the saving of his household.

The thing he had not yet seen was rain, but when it came it was a deluge for not only were there the fountains of the deep crashing back to earth all the way from orbit, normal rain started as well.

These events of course completely transformed the earth geologically giving us the mountains oceans and continents we have today. The upheavals that started with the cracking and collapse of the other crust split it into the moving tectonic plates we now know.

All this is the result of the hot earth thinking as it cooled.

So, what the bible says about the flood is generally supported by the sciences of geology, astronomy (eg Io), meteorology (details like nucleation) and physics (refractive indices). One of course would expect nothing less if the Bible is true.

Several items used in this article are copyright to others and are re-presented here. That is the nature of research. I believe my use of this is fair use but if the copyright owners wish I will happily remove their content if they contact me through WordPress or directly to request this.

# Being, consciousness, existence, self-awareness.

Being, consciousness, existence, self-awareness.

It would be fair to say, a lot of philosophers, theologists, linguists, psychologists, neurologists and other accidental or deliberate ontologists have expended a great deal of time, thought, ink and small patches of electromagnetic difference on this topic.

The current secular physiological stand is roughly that a complex patternated network of neurons with differentiated potential transmission capabilities along the pathways within it, gradually forms in response to stimuli and that this is a knowledge representation of the world, in which the constant activity eventually also forms a representation of the self as part of this world-model. The relating of the self-portion of the model to the rest of the world-model, constantly necessitated through the interactive experience of agency (tocsin – reticulating actions in babies*) as part of this learning of the self), causes the emergent phenomenon we call consious experience.

This is of course a wholly self-referential system. As such it gives me some cause to question whether such a flying by pulling on ones bootlaces model is really sufficient to explain consciousness. Is it rather that the current theory just cobbles together the few bits of information it has into a partial theory that scientists hope is right and hope to be able to make more robust as more evidence, hopefully supporting it, comes along. Well of course it is, as that is what all scientific theories do. However, as such incomplete things, all scientific theories also have to suffer the slings and arrows of logical objections picking them apart, offering alternative explanations, and demanding a re-think. I present my slings, arrows and demand.

The self-referential emergence (I’ll shorten that to SRE) theory of consciousness does not really drill down into that nub of the question we all really want to get at: Who or what is it that experiences being? SRE just says, in effect, “It is me that experiences being me.” This kind of answer does not satisfy, me.

Generally wholly self-referential answers are deprecated in science, logic and philosophy. The whole thrust of these branches of enquiry is to constantly seek what the next underpinning layer is, with perhaps some vague vain hope that eventually there will be some irrefutably logical underlying truth. The secular scientists of today hope of course that this will not turn out to be some supreme deity forever beyond their understanding. That would bring a whole heap of consequences that society after thousands of years has only just managed to stop worrying about.
The problem is that firstly there is unlikley to be any end to the secular process of scientific burrowing because the answer would need to be sustained by logic and the question is then: “But what sustains logic?”

Are we to arrive at yet another self-referential answer – logic sustains logic? This would seem very unsatisfactory. Despite many attempts to burrow to the bottom, nothing more fundamental has yet been obtained.

We are given clues however. The problem is these clues point to the theistic explanation. One such clue is the etymology of the word we use “logic.” This greek word means “that which is spoken; the word.”

We are burrowing down to look for the bedrock, the underlying truth, the progenitor of being, the foundation upon which logic itself rests.

Let me tell you, anyone that is willing to hear to the (initially) difficult (in terms of personal and social consequences), THIS truth. We have arrived at the bedrock!

It is there written for all to see. Logic (the word) you seek. The spark of being that experiences consciousness you seek. The basic original progenitor you seek. Your answer was already written with absolute clarity by the man who was given all the answers 2000 years ago. He was told to tell them to us. His name was John and he tells you what he was told to tell you, then he tells you who he is, that he is just an ordinary man given a mission to hear the truth and pass it on, then he explains why people will find it hard to believe him. He does not say anything in this immediate answer part, about the consequences of you knowing this truth (that information comes later), he simply answers these ultimate existential queries that we all harbour.

John 1 King James Version (KJV)
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 The same was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.
7 The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe.
8 He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.
9 That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.
10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.

You can stop digging only if you are prepared to yield that there is a God, that God underpins everything, including space and time so you cannot ask what was before God or where did God come from. The answer is not however self-referential for us, as it refers us and our world to something beyond. It refers us to God. God may seem self-referential to God, but we cannot apply logic to God as God is logic.

If you seek some Biblical confirmation – you will find that important things are usually stated in the Bible more than once – I can refer you to:

Colossians 1:17 King James Version (KJV)
And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

There are numerous cross-references of course:

John 8:58 “Truly, truly, I tell you,” Jesus declared, “before Abraham was born, I am!”

Hebrews 1:3 The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of His nature, upholding all things by His powerful word. After He had provided purification for sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high.

Colossians 1:15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:

Proverbs 8:22,23 The LORD possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old…

Isaiah 43:11-13 I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no savior…

1 Corinthians 8:6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, …

Hebrews 13:8 Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.

Revelation 1:8,11,17 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, said the Lord, …

Psalm 75:3 The earth and all the inhabitants thereof are dissolved: I bear up …

John 5:17,18 But Jesus answered them, My Father works till now, and I work…

Acts 17:28 For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also …

Hebrews 1:3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his …

Today, instead of being in Sunday morning church (usually I am but not today), I have instead read some Bible and chosen to pass on some information, in the hope it might bring joy, enlightenment and blessing into your life. I cannot think of a better thing to do with that freely given by God than to share it.

Enjoy Being as God intended.
God Bless You. Amen.

NOTES:

* The presence of repetitive movements, described as the repetition of the same movement multiple times, is considered a necessary step for the development of voluntary purposeful movements and seems to have an adaptive role during limited temporal windows of psychomotor development.
(Thelen E. (1979). Rhythmical stereotypies in normal human infants.
Anim. Behav. 27 699–715. 10.1016/0003-3472(79)90006-X [PubMed] [Cross Ref])

# Who collapsed it?

All things are quantum probability waves until an observer collapses them – so teaches physics. If there is no observer the universe is just all the possible states, all at once. So before there were people, who or what was observing the universe for it to have a definite state? How can there be any definite history of the universe between the big bang and the appearance of observers? Any definite history sufficient for instance to have definite solid planets, functioning stars and emerging evolving biology so as to give rise to the observers.

Physics requires a priori, an observer, to be anything other than an infinite mush of all possibilities.

So what constitutes an “observer” anyway? A plankton? A bacterium? A monkey? Whatever, no observer could have been around early enough to make the universe probability wave collapse into something that could give rise to that observer – it’s a paradox.

The answer is, of course, God. Oh how predictable those Christians are eh?

Now while you digest that, ponder this:

If a load of heavy stuff in a tiny place makes a black hole from which nothing can escape, how come the expanding big bang, which was ALL the heavy stuff there ever will be and all in a teeny weeny tiny place (to start with) didn’t disappear up its own bottom?

The answer is of course it was expanding fast enough to escape its gravity as it expanded faster than light and there wasn’t yet any space to curve into a hole as it was space itself expanding as it went. It wasn’t going backwards in time despite the expansion going faster than light as the time-space was expanding with the light, so the light was not travelling through space and time, it was travelling with space-time.

All this required an observer to actually be rather than potentially be. The only possible candidate is, as previously noted, God.

# The mystery of the Trinity

People continually pose the Trinity as being an unfathomable mystery. At first it is easy to go along with this collective confusion that adds a bit of extra mysticism and atmosphere to the Christian religion. However, I suggest that even a rudimentary understanding of psychology will demystify the Trinity and give us a better understanding of the God who made us. That is surely a much better thing to have than a cloudy consensus of unnecessary ignorance which seems to be there only for the sake of dramatic effect and wriggle room when difficult questions are asked. I don’t feel that the God who created the whole universe really needs such shoddy scenery – He is not the Wizard of Oz and He does not need flimsy curtains to hide behind. The God I know tells it like it is and has laid out most of the answers you are likely to need already in writing in His Bible.

The fundamental thing that I am getting at is given right at the beginning of the Bible. Because it is from the Bible you can be sure of the underlying premise. We are made in God’s image. If God is a Trinity then it is reasonable to suppose that within us you will also find that triune nature reflected.

Genesis 1:26  And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
Genesis 1:27  So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.  (KJV)

There is an awful lot in the two passages above. I have highlighted the parts relevant to this blog article that show the man created in Genesis 1:27 is multiple in nature and is in the image of God who is also multiple in nature. Before however I continue with my main theme, which is the triune nature of mankind, I would like to just mention one of the very important other things contained in the passages above. The next time someone suggests that God might be a woman you can point them to Genesis 1:27. Clearly within God are both male and female because as creations made in the image of God, we also have as a species those aspects. God is male, the Spirit, The Son and the Father, yes male, but within them they have the female, and in that image we were created both males and females.

Richard A. Posner has said:

“Some people hate themselves. But if I say, “I hate myself,” who is this “I” that stands apart from “myself”? And notice how in the expression “I am not myself today,” the “I” and “myself” change places. Now it is “myself” who is the authentic, the authoritative, the judgmental “I,” and it is “I” who is the self that is judged and found wanting. Some people talk to themselves; when they do, who is speaking and who is listening?”

So, there you have an educated but non-psychologist’s view of the multiple nature of each of us that probably most people would recognise.

Sigmund Freud was roundly attacked for many years by much of mainstream psychology, especially in the very left-wing universities such as the one where I studied. Freud is now left by mainstream psychology in a backwater of history by most university teaching. When I was studying psychology many years ago the attack on him was in full swing, perpetrated by left-wing liberals, anti-racists and feminists who disliked him because of the attitudes he held. His attitudes were of course completely normal and acceptable in the times and culture – Vienna the late 1880’s – when he did his work. It is nowadays we find objection. His detractors however were so strident and aggressive in their demands for the expulsion of anything that did not fit their ultra-egalitarian view of politics, they chose to throw out the baby with the bathwater rather than recognise that just because a person comes with attitudes we would no longer agree with, they can nevertheless tell some truths. It is as if an evil dictator were to point to a clear blue sky and say the sky is blue and we were to say no the sky is green because we did not like his politics. To do so is arrant nonsense.

Freud posited the Ego, ID and Super-Ego as being the  three aspects of mind of which we are comprised. He also posited different drives or motivations such as Libido (sexual) and Thanatos (the death wish) that incline us to different behaviours. In a nutshell, Freud was saying it is as if we have several different minds or personalities, chiefly three. Freud also recognised that the relationships we have with those closest to us have significant effect upon our behaviour. Freud posited syndromes such as the Oedipus complex in his attempt to categorise and explain some of the more prevalent types of unhealthy relationships that may influence us. One can readily accept that Freud’s more developed theories are in many cases probably erroneous or at least very over-stated. However as I have said we should not throw out the baby with the bathwater and lose site of the underlying insights that Freud had.

Notwithstanding the internecine conflicts of psychological endeavour, there are more recent scientific advances that claim to undermine the whole realm of modern talking psychology. The neuropsychology of neuroscience, using machines such as various forms of tomography (eg functional magnetic resonance imaging) can show that different regions of the brain, sometimes different regions simultaneously, are active during different mental states and tasks. Far from supplanting psychology however, I think a more honest appraisal of neuro-psychology is that it validates psychology, and politically annoyingly for many modern thinkers, also validates somewhat the theories of Freud.

It is not unknown that early scientist’s theories are thrown out and ridiculed, only for later science to show they were quite close to the truth, but science does not like to admit its mistakes. In the murky and highly contestable world of evolution we find examples such as Lamarck – look what we now know about epigenetics but no-one is saying “Oh dear sorry” to Lamarck. Then there is Immanuel Velikovsky who said that planets had collided and was poo-pooed. Now we say the moon was a result of a big collision and there are lots of other planetary collisions that are suggested as well, by the same mainstream astronomy that lambasted Velikovsky, called him fraud and sent him into the margins of history from where I doubt you have ever heard of him. Dare we speak of Tesla? The AC current you are using today is his contribution, but you know the name of Edison much better eh? All I am saying here is DO NOT TRUST ORTHODOX SCIENCE – it is as a dishonest and political and hypocritical endeavour as any other. Science will tel you there is no God, but it will sacrifice truth even in its own ranks for less noble ideals, and it will not admit when it is wrong. When I was a kid we were told that Pandas were NOT Bears. Now they are Bears. Whaaaat?!

My original purpose in studying psychology was to understand the nature of consciousness. In that endeavour I felt that I had gone as far as I could at the time when I was studying. I was confident then and still am that consciousness is an emergent process and as such has many components that you might describe as mini–minds. That was some decades ago and science has moved on. Nevertheless all that the march of progress has contributed to understanding the nature all the human mind still points to a very triune nature, annoyingly to some, very much like that which Freud described.

That triune nature of man, unsurprisingly to a Christian, reflects the fact that as Genesis 1:26 reports, we are indeed made in the image of God – a Trinity created and loves us. We are so like God in that aspect, it really should not be hard to understand the Trinity at all.

# On the Waters

I was thinking about The Spirit of God moving upon the face of the waters. Think of Him, hovering all around that sphere we call Earth.

Has it occurred to anyone that this is a “pre-echo” “prophesying” that Christ would walk on the water?

And I thought about God, The Spirit, wrapping the world in Love, for He is pure love. And I thought “How did he feel, knowing that the lovely world he was making would fall and reject Him?” Of course He also knew that in the world, some of the people He would make in His image, with free will as He has free will, will freely choose Him (yes I did change tense there).

He had, and has hope that His world, made in love, will return that love. He feels hope. His hope is in us. Our hope is in Him. He wrapped the world in His pure love, our Father’s embrace.

# Love is stronger than death

God is love.
1 John 4:8
God is everywhere.
Jeremiah 23:24
God holds the universe together – every atom, electron, fabric of time and space, dimension, law of physics. By Him all things consist.
Colossians 1:17
The love which is God is the primary force which holds everything in existence.
This is literal truth.

God loves the world. God so loved the world that He gave His only Son.
John 3:16
God loves not just the people in the world but the whole created universe, the Earth Moon Stars Animals Trees etc. He loves it all.
His love keeps it together.
Adam chose to eat the fruit that would lead to death rather than part from Eve. Love was stronger than death.
Genesis 3:6
God knew this would happen.

Abraham loved God so much he was willing to sacrifice his son to God but love was stronger than death and so he did not have to.
Genesis 22:1-13
God in return loved the world so much that He gave his only Son Jesus on the cross.
But love is stronger than death, and death could not hold Jesus.
Acts 2:24

Yesterday I saw a beautiful sight in McDonalds.
There was a young couple, about 18 years old. He looked a rough tough working class guy a bit of a thug maybe even. She was no classical beauty, but cute in an ugly-cute kinda way. They were fawning over each other, looking gooeyly into each others eyes and hugging inseparably as they waited for their burgers.
In the other line were the parents of one of them, also hugging and kissing inseperably.
All normal heterosexual good love, the way God made us.
They may not have been saved Christians – who knows. They may not be married – who knows. It was nevertheless refreshing to see that normal attraction has not been supplanted everwhere by the perverse abnormal versions that the New World Order is promoting so heavily.

To be a normal heterosexual Christian is becoming increasingly rebellious.
Try and not sell a wedding cake promoting homosexuality if you are a Christian cake shop in British Northern Ireland and you will see.
Tell your moslem friend about Jesus if you work for the British NHS (National Health Service) and see if you would keep your job.
Ever was it so, to be a Christian was to be a rebel.

Real Christians throughout history have been an underground persecuted minority, from the secret arrangements to meet described in the Bible onwards, forced to meet in secret, use secret symbols like the fish graffiti and the hidden cross in the trident symbol, or use the crossed fingers fish tail sign to recognise each other.

Christians have been killed for their love of God throughout history to the present day.
To truly follow Jesus and to live a Christian normal life and to proclaim it and spread the word is rebellion against the fallen world and against the evil that wants to run this world and to draw people away from God to jealous Satan’s death trap.

I have always had a rebel heart, and it led me a long long way from where God wanted me to be. However when I was in Spain, spotting the graffitis of the Christian rebellion, ichthuses and the combined venus and mars symbols that proclaim heterosexuality,  was part of my being called to join Jesus’s rebellion against the wrong living that has taken hold in the world, and instead of following the world, for me to follow Him.

When God finally wraps up this world it will be dramatic and terrible in a way beyond imagination: wars, earthquakes, tyranny, persecution and eventually the very fabric of space will roll up like a scroll, crushing into nothing like the other dimensions that physics admits are curled up tiny already.
Isaiah 34:4
Revelation 6:14

But this will not be done by God out of hatred. Despite it seeming horrible, ending this world will be an act of love, like euthanizing a loved animal rather than see it suffer, and He has the upgrade ready for us to live in, a new Heaven and a new Earth, where there is no death.
Revelation 21:1-4

Love is stronger than death.
Join the rebellion, be on the winning side, fight with The Prince Of Peace.

# Pi in the sky.

1 Kings 7:23 (KJV)
and
2 Chronicles 4:2 (KJV)

If something appears more than once in the Bible it is VERY IMPORTANT.

Reading these, taking a simple approach to these translations of originally Hebrew writings can lead us to think that the value of Pi (the ratio of a circle’s circumference to its diameter) was either believed to be 3 in those times, or that the Bible reports the matter wrongly.

This can lead to speculation as to whether space was hyperbolically (negatively) curved by Pi over 3 which would give a value of Pi as 3. Apart from possible flaws in my math (!) there are probable flaws in that as a theory because Pi is meaningless in non-Euclidian geometries (try it with different circles on the surface of a sphere for instance).

Fortunately a great bible scholar has explained the apparent discrepancy in the reported values by resort to analysis of the Hebrew text. The way the Hebrew is written is odd and has additions to the words that tell us to apply Hebrew letter values to the measurements in the account, and when this is done, Pi comes out as very very accurate in engineering terms. Chuck Missler’s explanation is here http://www.khouse.org/articles/1998/158/

Job 26:10 (KJV) describes “He hath compassed the waters with bounds, until the day and night come to an end.”

This is sometimes, in other translations of the Bible, given as inscribing a circle of light on the earth, between day and night. Whatever, it is clear from other passages in Job – e.g. 26:7 (“He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing.”) – that the Earth is being described as it is seen from space (who has seen the regions of the North Pole or the Earth hanging in space when that was written eh?

These clues peppered around the Bible ask us to think about the circumference of our planet and how it might change, whilst giving a watery oceanic context to the puzzle. Kings, Chronicles, Job all talk of circles and seas.

When considering water on a global scale we are led to think about Genesis and the great flood. I wrote about the Knuckle theory of the great flood  at https://kevintangodance.wordpress.com/tag/noah/

In terms of the Knuckle theory, think about the difference between the circumference of the earth pre- and post- the collapse of the outer shell of land (that squeezed out the underground sea as the fountains of the deep). Is that difference related in magnitude to the apparent difference between Pi and 3 pointed to in Kings and Chronicles? If so we have another watermark (pun?!) of truth and authenticity that cross-authenticates the Bible itself and the history of the flood that it gives us.

If the underground sea was about 500 miles down (460) which is an approximation of the depth used in knuckle theory, then the diameter of the earth around the inner sea’s top surface is about 1000 miles (1250) less than the diameter of the earth that is described from space in Job. This gives a difference in the calculated circumference of those two spheres that is close to the difference between Pi and 3.

Things in the Bible are important if they are repeated. God’s word invites us to enquire, to make connections and see that things in it that may at first seem difficult to comprehend are actually true. He gives us in the Bible a careful network of supporting evidence that shows that not only is the Bible a coherent whole that could only have been assembled for us by divine guidance for it’s hidden logical watermarks to align, but tells us of things we would find hard to believe – the writer knew what the Earth looks like from space (He had seen it’s stunning beauty and just had to describe that amazing sight) – hard to believe things such as that there was a great flood.

As Chuck Missler so appositely quotes:

But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. – John 14:26

As I was typing this, David Maasbach on his radio station quoted:

John 16:14 (KJV) He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you.

Link to the lovely Maasbach Radio for your listening enjoyment. What a good looking website by the way.

POST SCRIPT

As I was about to post this I read that NASA have discovered the oldest galaxy yet, named GN-z11. Story here. Sounds a bit like Genesis 1:1 (KJV) – “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.”  Ha Ha! SOMEONE has a sense of humour.

Praise the Lord!

# Never mind mindfulness, what IS mind?

There is an interesting article in The Daily Beast – “How to mathematically measure consciousness” – about the scientific endeavour to understand the neurological basis of consciousness. When I majored in psychology some years ago my motivation was to understand the root or origin of consciousness. I found enough answers to sate my curiousity and have moved on to other questions, but at that time there was little or no neurological address of the mysteries of consciousness. So, I have followed the growth of the still nascent science of neuropsychology with great interest since those days.

It is not my intention to plagarise the excellently written Daily Beast article so I do recommend you read it. The part of the article that I want to comment on is the part that explains that in quantum physics the act of observation changes what you are looking at, and the article draws the parallel with neuropsychology where looking for the neurological correlates of consciousness may, because the subject has to report the experience as the measurements are made, result in the mechanics of enquiry (reporting) changing the phenomenon (consciousness) being studied.

Now this may just be a coincidental parallel, but I can suggest there are reasons why one should consider things otherwise:

Firstly in the quantum case the observations we know of that affect quantum outcomes are (necessarily)  those that ultimately report back to humans. It seems there is an inescapable link between how reality works and how we perceive it, and the fact that we do perceive it.

Next let me now draw the spiritual parallel. By Him all things consist. God holds it together, God makes it exist. When (not if) He “lets go” everything will fall apart, space itself will roll up like a scroll – we all know about curvature of space eh? Nice clear scientifically accurate language in the Bible there.

We are, it is written, made in God’s image. He affects reality by causing it and holding it together in existence. As beings made in His image, is it any surprise that our observations of reality affect it? That looking at a quantum phenomenon changes it? Really that should be no surprise at all to any person with even a rudimentary understanding of the faboulous science book that is the Bible.

So, questions such as “Is consciousness a quantum phenomenon?” – which I know you are jumping up and down in your seats with raised hands desperate to ask – are somewhat on their heads. The right question is more like “Are a quantum phenomena a result of consciousness?”

We have a lot of circularity there, so clearly we are in a self-referential trap. Let’s find our way out. We often think about mind body spirit as if we are triune in nature (ho ho ho see some parallels there?). Okay, lets run with that. We need to look away from mind and body (the world and the consciousness) to the third element. Let’s see how it works with God and as we are made in His image maybe we will see how it works with us.

If in doubt, look to God – He created it all so He has the answers. More pointedly, not only is He “The Answer” in that very general country pastor homily kind of way (nothing wrong with that by the way), but He is the answer (the specifc one we are looking for) to our science question. God is a consciousness and He has a soul. As well as in Genesis hovering on waters, God’s soul gets a mention in Leviticus 26:11 – And I will set my tabernacle among you: and my soul shall not abhor you. This world and our minds are two sides of the same coin, they interact so intimately in a circular way you have to look outside that reality/mind circular loop for the cause of it’s existence. If you look to the soul to provide that answer you are reminded to look to that ultimate soul that we are made in the image of.

We are not a flesh image of a flesh God, our minds which arise created and sustained by God – the world of quantum phenomena and its atoms that comprise that flesh and emergent minds – are not mind images of God. That which truly comprises us is our soul. Our soul is that which God made in His image. We are soul images of God.

Our soul is that which powers and sustains our particle of mind/quantum interaction that we so easily mistake for our essence.
We are IN this world but we are not OF this world.

Things that get said more than once in the Bible are really really important so note this extract from John 17 (KJV) well:

13 And now come I to thee; and these things I speak in the world, that they might have my joy fulfilled in themselves. 14 I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. 15 I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil. 16 They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.

He is talking about YOU. You, the bit that is really you, not the body that if you lose an arm or a leg you are still you, not the mind you that dies every night and is resurrected every morning, but the soul you, the real you that powers the mind-body illusion of you that scientists are finding it hard to study. As God powers this world “illusion” that we are in (no the world is real because God makes it so but you get my drift), so those images of God that are our souls power the mix of our minds and the quantum phenomena that science is trying to grasp.

And here’s a thing: When you consider a child affected by Zika virus with ancephaly or anyone with mental or physical disability – and have the temerity to question why God made that child or to think about murdering a foetus by abortion that in world terms might be considered imperfect (and just who among us is perfect eh – cast the first stone!) – look beyond the mind and body to the soul and see the real value of that person and know God has a purpose for them that you cannot fathom, so show some love and respect to God’s creation of that brother or sister of the triune you and your triune creator.

You and they are more wonderful than you think, you are indeed more wonderful than your thinking, and more wonderful than you are capable of thinking. Fortunately you are not your thoughts, you are your soul. You are exactly as wonderful as God spoke you into being, and as His image, exactly as wonderful as Him.

# A quantum theory of inertia

Once you understand gravity in quantum terms – oh by the way the gravitational waves fit kinda nicely don’t they – then it’s not too hard to understand inertia in a similar fashion.

Stuff is in place A. That is it’s probability wave has the greatest amplitude – at place A. You want to move it to place B. The probability of it being at B is lower, because it isn’t there yet. So you are working against probability when you move it from A to B, you are having to change the probability at A to less and at B to more. That requires some kind of action, which generally means the expenditure of some kind of energy.

Gravity is stuff tending to move to where stuff already is because there is a higher probability of stuff, any stuff, being there already.

Inertia is stuff wanting to stay where it is because there is a higher probability of if being there than where it is not.

Space (a bunch of dimensions) can be curved by stuff. The stuff tends to be/stay/move-to where it already is, probabilistically speaking, and so does the space.

Accelerating stuff means you are drawing it away from where it probabilistically “wants” to be, so you are also dragging the space “away” from where it probabilistically “wants” to be. So it keeps popping back to where it was a bit as well as being where you are moving it to – it stretches. So does the time dimension. Acceleration stretches (dilates) time.

Einstein was pretty much right, and the quantum gravity and inertia theories I have explained here both support and explain phenomena that Einstein predicted and physicists have since detected – time dilation, curvature of space, and very topically this week, gravitational waves.

“Laws” of physics are really good things generally speaking, but remember, an awful lot of what appears to be a physical law is just the artefact of a high probability. The bible says (Luke 1:37) “For with God nothing shall be impossible” and God doesn’t even need to re-write the laws to make things happen, He just needs to arrange things so that the highly unlikely thing happens to happen by chance anyway. We call such things “miracles.” You are one of those. Miracles and the supernatural are not things that are outside physics, they are just things that are hard to explain using physics, but they are not impossible in terms of physics at all, because it’s all underpinned by probability.

And what you may ask underpins probability?

I’ll leave you these quotes, which if you think deeply about the stuff I’ve been writing about, I think you will see are apposite:

Jeremiah 29:11
(so many times this passage is quoted by people, but look deeper into it, think about the physics, the probabilities, and what God can do with His knowledge. This passage is not ONLY in the bible just to cheer you up)

James 4:14 – Whereas ye know not what shall be on the morrow. For what is your life? It is even a vapour, that appeareth for a little time, and then vanisheth away.

1 Corinthians 14:33 – For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.

Colossians 1:17 – And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

# A Quantum theory of Gravity

Recap – you already know this –

A particle is only probably somewhere, albeit tied down by it’s Planck length, it is mostly somewhere, but it is a probability wave – particle-like only insomuch as as the crest of that wave pokes up noticeably. All the other places it also is, but rather less so, well that’s the quantum foam.

So how does this speak to gravity?

A large mass is a place where there’s lots of stuff. That is to say a place where lots of stuff more probably is than is not. So, why does other stuff want to be there? – Why does gravity pull? Why is mass attractive?

Well think about it. A large mass is a place where there is a high probability of stuff being.

Now here’s another little bit of stuff.

And there’s that place where there is a high probability of stuff being (a mass).

A high probability of stuff, ANY stuff, being there. Our little other bit of stuff for instance, is more likely to be there, because there is already a likelihood of stuff (ANY stuff) being there (THAT’s what a big mass that exhibits gravitational attraction, IS).

So the the probability wave of our little attracted particle is more likely to crest closer to where all the other stuff is, so it does just that, it moves toward the mass, it hones in toward where the probability of it being is higher. With each Planck length tick of the time dimension the temporo-spatial coordinates of its probably wave crest gets closer to where the other wave crests are, and synergistically they wind-up the probability and it accelerates, jumping proportionally closer with each Plank tick.

The reason why accelleration is a squaring of velocity, is connected with the right-angle relationship between the dimensions things can move in. Dimensions like time and space are of course just potential directions that things can probabilistically pop up in. Our particle at any point on the time line (T-axis) is a set distance from the centre of mass (z-axis), and so has (conventionally) only to count the density (probability) of its fellow in its x and y axes of the “shell” around the centre of mass where it currently is. The progress as it steps along z toward the centre as t passes contracts the available surface area of the x-y shell according to the inverse square law, so acceleration toward the centre (increased probability of being at the centre) increases as a square. G is always measured in metres per second per second. Acceleration per second per second – i.e. squared – is just an artefact of the way the area of a nest of spherical shells around a point contracts, like bringing the spots on the shrinking balloon closer together, thus making the likelihood of spots being near each other, higher.

The quantum theory of gravity is just a self-fulfilling prophecy. The more stuff is likely to be somewhere (and demonstrably this probability is so if the stuff is there), the more all stuff is likely to be there, so it in that direction the crest of its probability wave moves, accelerating as it goes along.

As always, the way things are arranged is elegantly simple.

You may ask where does a guy with not a huge amount of training in physics get such ideas. Well…

Romans 1:19-20 (KJV)
19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: