The Earth does not Revolve around the Sun - Toroidal Vortex / Circle of the Deep

We miss what is being said in the Bible by incorrect perspective. So many people puff themselves up, claiming to 'know' how the Bible has errors in its cosmology. What if the earth does not revolve around the sun, but is laid in a foundation at the top of a toroidal vortex? Was Marko Rodin correct in his cosmology? Sounds crazy until you consider the video below.

Isaiah 40:22
It is he who sits above the circle of the earth, and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers; who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, and spreads them like a tent to dwell in;

Proverbs 8:27-29
When he established the heavens, I was there, when he drew a circle on the face of the deep, when he made firm the skies above, when he established the fountains of the deep, when he assigned to the sea its limit, so that the waters might not transgress his command, when he marked out the foundations of the earth,

Job 26:10
He has described a circle upon the face of the waters at the boundary between light and darkness.

1 Samuel 2:8
He raises up the poor from the dust; he lifts the needy from the ash heap, to make them sit with princes and inherit a seat of honor. For the pillars of the earth are the Lord's, and on them he has set the world.

Job 9:6
who shakes the earth from its place, and its pillars tremble.

Job 38:4-6
Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? Tell me, if you have understanding. Who determined its measurements -- surely you know! Or who stretched the line upon it? On what were its bases sunk, or who laid its cornerstone?

Job 26: 7
He stretches out the north over the void, and hangs the earth upon nothing.

reply to post by SuperiorEd


Only you, Ed, would post something like this, implying that the entire solar system moving through space somehow makes the sun rotate around a stationary Earth. Rodin is a quack, but even he didn't make such claims. You did a nice job of elucidating the Bible's stone-aged cosmology though.

One more thing that I'd like to add is that the Hebrew word that is translated as "circle" actually refers to a disk, implying a flat Earth. Cool theories about toroidal vortexes aside, how would you debate that?

I'll buy it. That video makes more sense than what I was taught in school.

PS- I'm glad the Earth isn't flat!

reply to post by SuperiorEd

I like this guy despite him always getting bashed. Here is a great animation and it is apparently (I am not an expert!) reasonably correct according to some.


ETA Born in Sin...or born in Sine?

Originally posted by Q:1984A:1776
reply to post by SuperiorEd

 

Only you, Ed, would post something like this. Rodin is a quack. You did a nice job of elucidating the Bible's stone-aged cosmology though.

One more thing that I'd like to add is that the Hebrew word that is translated as "circle" actually refers to a disk, implying a flat Earth. Cool theories about toroidal vortexes aside, how would you debate that?

I only illustrate absurdity with absurdity. Obviously, more than one perspective is true. We do revolve around the sun, yet what we perceive as a flat reality has dimension beyond our flat slice of reality. Do we have future and past, as well as the 'now' we see? Yes. It's a given. We only perceive a slice of the fourth dimension. The same reason we only see a slice is the same reason the third dimension is in movement; the same reason the planets are not flat in movement; the same reason God's word is impenetrable apart form dimensional thinking.

Impenetrability is a metaphysical mathematics abstract that says two objects cannot occupy the same space. Two thoughts cannot occupy the same space. The intellect and the emotion cannot occupy the same space. Light and dark cannot occupy the same space. The stronger of the two dualities, no matter the context, cannot occupy a common space. The stronger force overrides the weaker. Only a balance of diverging perspectives can seek equilibrium. As above, so below. God can only be perceived by the abstracts of spiritual value. Literal wisdom is insufficient.

If you see the earth as it is in relation to the sun, you see matter in relation to light. They are a duality. Light is both particle and wave with information in motion. God is Father (Light / Wave / Consciousness, Son (Wave / Word / Laws / Governing Principles) and Holy Spirit (Consciousness). It is absurd to challenge the physics that the Bible states clearly from verse one.

Genesis 1:1
In the Beginning (Time), God created the heavens (Space) and the earth (Matter). Let there be light (Energy).

All I'm saying here is that we simply need to step back and love God for allowing us the privilege to see with open eyes. Humility opens the eyes wide.

Love God and lover others for equilibrium and life.

Jesus is the Word made flesh to save mankind by allowing redemption by the kinsman of humanity. What a God we serve! A friend who would come down from His throne in glory to save a wretch like me. This is Amazing Grace and physics beyond the pale.

Yeah, but then why does gravity work for other applications?

Totally agree with this idea. Except that its still revolving, its just a corkscrew/spire type of revolution instead of a closed circuit revolution. new documentary came out last month that has a lot of information about vortex dynamics and the torus...nassim haramein is interviewed along with ex-military and government officials. I hiiiighly recommend it to anyone interested in spacetime fabric, physics, and the torus. THRIVE

Originally posted by metalshredmetal
Totally agree with this idea. Except that its still revolving, its just a corkscrew/spire type of revolution instead of a closed circuit revolution. new documentary came out last month that has a lot of information about vortex dynamics and the torus...nassim haramein is interviewed along with ex-military and government officials. I hiiiighly recommend it to anyone interested in spacetime fabric, physics, and the torus. THRIVE

Good stuff. I'll watch it.

reply to post by SuperiorEd


keep up your good work. Then I won't need to show how backward Christianity really is. Come on man it's the 21st centuary. What next? We all ride horses to Israel and occupy bethlehem We can't sail there because the earth is flat you'd most likely say.

One great leap backward for humanity just in this OP

Originally posted by metalshredmetal
Totally agree with this idea. Except that its still revolving, its just a corkscrew/spire type of revolution instead of a closed circuit revolution. new documentary came out last month that has a lot of information about vortex dynamics and the torus...nassim haramein is interviewed along with ex-military and government officials. I hiiiighly recommend it to anyone interested in spacetime fabric, physics, and the torus. THRIVE

The opening scene is of two universes coming together at the projection point of both. The toroidal Vortex is then pictured as the universe between. Compare this to the opening statement of my article on The Physics of God.

"As stated by Paul Dirac's relativistic quantum mechanical wave equation, our universe is parallel to another universe in opposite. Our matter is anti-matter to this mirrored universe. The event horizon between these two universes represents the projection point of both."

Originally posted by steveknows
reply to post by SuperiorEd

 

keep up your good work. Then I won't need to show how backward Christianity really is. Come on man it's the 21st centuary. What next? We all ride horses to Israel and occupy bethlehem

We can't sail there because the earth is flat you'd most likely say.

One great leap backward for humanity just in this OP

edit on 10-12-2011 by steveknows because: (no reason given)

Read my second post. Absurdity with absurdity. We are both describing the same reality form differing perspectives that only need the excluded middle to unify paradox. Dimensional thinking is necessary to understand God.

Originally posted by LightSpeedDriver
reply to post by SuperiorEd

 

I like this guy despite him always getting bashed. Here is a great animation and it is apparently (I am not an expert!) reasonably correct according to some.

ETA Born in Sin...or born in Sine?

edit on 10/12/11 by LightSpeedDriver because: ETA

Great video!

Imagine the stronger gravitational force of the sun and it pitches a tent around the weaker forces of the bodies around it. It leads them in a line as a king by the Word of God (Information in wave and light).

Psalm 19:4
Yet their voice goes out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world. In the heavens God has pitched a tent for the sun.

The toroidal vortex sets behind the pole of the sun, summoning the earth along from behind. Perfection and balance in motion.

Psalm 50:1
A psalm of Asaph. The Mighty One, God, the LORD, speaks and summons the earth from the rising of the sun to where it sets.

Does the sun rise?

Hosea 6:3
Let us acknowledge the LORD; let us press on to acknowledge him. As surely as the sun rises, he will appear; he will come to us like the winter rains, like the spring rains that water the earth.”

Ecclesiastes 1:5
The sun rises and the sun sets, and hurries back to where it rises.

In the galaxy, the sun comes back, yet the galaxy also moves.

this theory kinda makes sense.
but if we are travelling along with the sun as it is said,wouldnt the stars, that we see every night change?
i mean the view in which we see them??or even the stars getting dimmer as we went further away..

reply to post by cantsee4looking

From what I understand, the stars do change over time, much time, just as our so-called North Star does. A complete circuit takes 26,000 years I believe. You won't see much change in a day or a year or two.

reply to post by LightSpeedDriver
[mo ok,ok...but we have records of our skys that go back thousands of years and nothing has change to warrant this theory...although i may be wrong
but travelling along at that kinda speed etc must make a change to what we view,surely.

reply to post by cantsee4looking

My figures are also probably wrong too, perhaps an astronomer type can chime in but I think (from my bad memory) the earth's procession is 26,000 years to go through all the signs or ages of the zodiac. The sun's orbital path through the milky way is apparently much longer. 220 million years?

ETA I think it is because most of what we see as stars are so far away that the changes are small but ancient civilizations seemed to know much of this info with uncanny accuracy. I can't remember which group of people it was but they worked out and could predict all lunar and solar eclipses due to their advanced astronomical knowledge. (Mayans?)

I am not really sure about this guy's hypothesis, but watching that video did give me an idea. This is probably completely incorrect since I am not all that knowledgeable in this area, but since large masses, such as the Sun, displace and distort space-time, could it be possible that this creates some type of "ripple" in the fabric on space-time itself, which radiates outward, possibly giving the force needed to explain the expansion of the universe?

If not, it seems that the space that fills in the place where the mass once was should have some type of "movement." What are the implications of this? As far as this man's vortex hypothesis, I personally do not see what the vortex is made of.

I suppose it could only be a vortex created in space-time itself, as that is the only true "medium" there is to my knowledge. Despite this, I cannot see this as a refutation of our current knowledge, which has the upperhand, being based on observation.

Another problem with both my theory and his is the fact that it is not backed up by MATH, the language of the universe. Does this man even know if his idea is mathematically feasible? And if it is, does it make correct predictions and match up with our current understanding?

If this were true it would change many things we think we know, and those are big shoes to fill, and the math must be correct in so many different areas that I do not see it ever happening. But the Earth is in fact flat, as I almost fell off of it one time. Yes I WAS intoxicated, but does that ruin my credibility? I suck at making funnies.

Here's something I found in the last year and someone else brought this topic up last month and linked the e-book titled,

Helical Helix : Solar System a Dynamic Process

www.feandft.com...

That discussion was pretty short lived as I don't believe anyone actually took the time to look the e-book over thoroughly.

Here's something else to take into consideration along with it. Does Rodin's coil help to explain this?

Large holes discovered in Earth's protective shield

www.cosmosmagazine.com...

Originally posted by cantsee4looking
this theory kinda makes sense.
but if we are travelling along with the sun as it is said,wouldnt the stars, that we see every night change?
i mean the view in which we see them??or even the stars getting dimmer as we went further away..

It takes 225 million years to traverse the galaxy. Too long to notice the movement. As well, the stars are also moving the same direction in relation. The scales of size are giant.

Originally posted by JiggyPotamus
I am not really sure about this guy's hypothesis, but watching that video did give me an idea. This is probably completely incorrect since I am not all that knowledgeable in this area, but since large masses, such as the Sun, displace and distort space-time, could it be possible that this creates some type of "ripple" in the fabric on space-time itself, which radiates outward, possibly giving the force needed to explain the expansion of the universe?

If not, it seems that the space that fills in the place where the mass once was should have some type of "movement." What are the implications of this? As far as this man's vortex hypothesis, I personally do not see what the vortex is made of.

I suppose it could only be a vortex created in space-time itself, as that is the only true "medium" there is to my knowledge. Despite this, I cannot see this as a refutation of our current knowledge, which has the upperhand, being based on observation.

Another problem with both my theory and his is the fact that it is not backed up by MATH, the language of the universe. Does this man even know if his idea is mathematically feasible? And if it is, does it make correct predictions and match up with our current understanding?

If this were true it would change many things we think we know, and those are big shoes to fill, and the math must be correct in so many different areas that I do not see it ever happening. But the Earth is in fact flat, as I almost fell off of it one time. Yes I WAS intoxicated, but does that ruin my credibility? I suck at making funnies.

Very interesting perspective. I think we are really pretty protective of our knowledge. This amounts to pride. Take a look at any theologian and see how closely they keep their theology on God. They are the only ones who are correct. If I were to go to my pastor and speak to him on a subject on abstract biblical symbolism, it would be a short-lived discussion. They simply don't want the theology upset. Rather than being open, like a child, they close themselves in pride. Science does the same. Not only do they close off the outside possibility, this fact blinds them to discovery.

Like you, I like to keep an open mind. The most obvious thing we can see, as pointed out in the video below, is that the structure underlying the universe is a balanced purpose with a high degree of engineering. We easily see God form this and then keep this as our central foundation. Science takes the opposite approach, yet eventually finds its way back to the source. We clearly see this happening today as the singularity meets at all points in the process. We finally see face to face with God, as He stated would happen in 1 Corinthians 13. Oddly enough, the chapter even gives the purpose of why it is so.

Pride can only tell the mind that it is not so, causing blindness from the corrupted vision of the image.

1 Corinthians 13

11 When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me. 12 For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.

13 And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.

Why did God create the universe? He wanted to express his love to the observers of his work. Love comes with understanding. We find this revealed in Job, the ultimate book to reveal a man's pride against God. Job was the most righteous, yet he was full of pride because of his goodness. God brings him down to truth. The central truth that Job found was this simple set of verses:

Job 28

28 And he said to the human race,
“The fear of the Lord—that is wisdom,
and to shun evil is understanding.”

Then, we further refine this thought by understanding what is meant. Confucius helps in this:

"I hear and I forget. I see and I learn. I do and I understand."

God gives us words to hear, sight to the blind and understanding to those who live and move in righteousness. In other words, wisdom and understanding comes when we think and move apart form evil and fear (reverence) God in the process. No law can be broken if we do this. No law is needed apart from the law that governs the process to perfection.