Some Thomistic Concepts Introduced and Discussed.

St Thomas Aquinas holds the title as universal doctor of the Church. He is responsible for writing the great works of the Summa Theologia and Summa Contra Gentiles, among many other important works. I intend to introduce some Thomistic concepts for discussion.

The first concept is that of the person which may be understood in contrast to that of being in God.

Question - What is the difference between a being and person in God?

Answer - being in God is the divine nature. God is being. A person is understood diversely as -

1) a hypostases or supposit of rational nature. A hypostases is a concrete thing, for example a a chair existing in the real is a concrete thing. Likewise a person is a concrete thing existing in the real, and therefore a hypostases. A person is also different from a chair for a person is rational, and thereby has the spiritual powers of intellect and will. A person is then a concrete thing, existing in the real, with an intellect and will.

If this definition is transferred to the notion of a divine person, each person is then a concrete thing with an intellect and a will. Yet in God, there is only one intellect and one will, for God is not composed of parts, nor has accidental perfections. A divine person is also a hypostases or supposit as a concrete thing. Such means the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are three, concrete things that exist in the real. Each concrete thing existing in the real is really distinct from the other. The Father is not the Son, nor the Holy Spirit and so on. The Father is then a concrete thing with an intellect and will. This definition does tell us something of the nature of a divine person, but the definition is lacking according to the manner in which 1) the Father's personhood is not that of the Son and Holy Spirit, and 2) the Father's intellect and will is identical to that of the Son and Holy Spirit. Likewise for the Son and Holy Spirit.

2) that which is incommunicable. A person owns everything which it has. For example Peter owns his arms, legs, eye, heart, thoughts, willing and actions. Each of these parts can be communicated to another. Such as an idea. Peter can have an idea, which is known to him and is therefore Peter's idea. Peter can then also express the idea to another and thereby communicates the idea to another. Likewise Peter can give every other part of himself to another. For example, Peter can give all of his actions to another as to an employer.

However, there is something Peter cannot communicate, or give to another. That which cannot be communicated to another is Peter's person. Peter is the name we give to the person, which is that that cannot be given to another. When Peter gives, it is Peter, and not another person that gives. Peter then cannot give something of himself that is Peter, for there is not person, prior to the person of Peter, by which Peter can be given to anther. Peter, then is the name given to the personhood of the rational substance, which is fundamentally incommunicable.

When applied to God, the divine person is that which cannot be communicated to another within God. The Fathers, intellect, will, being, and life are all communicated to the Son and the Holy Spirit. Yet the Father as a person, cannot communicate His own distinct personhood to another divine person. For the Father is, and always will be a distinct, incommunicable being, other than the Son and the Holy Spirit. Like wise for the Son and the Holy Spirit.

3) the first subject of attribution. The first subject is that subject which is before all others. A second subject is that which depends upon the first subject as a first. For example, my hand is the subject of my fingers. My fingers are dependent upon my hand as a third subject is dependent upon a second subject. The hand is then in turn dependent upon the first subject, which is the owner of all other subjects. The first subject, is the person that owns all the attributes of the man, called Peter. Peter has hands, legs and arms and habits, which are all owned by Peter. All these things are known as attributes. Therefore Peter, is the first subject of attribution, and is therefore the human person, who owns all of the attributes.

When applied to God, the F/S/HS all own the divine attributes. The divine persons who own the divine attributes are the first subjects of attribution. Therefore in God, there are three, first subjects of attribution.

4) Substantial relation. There is no examples in creation of a substantial relation. We do however have examples of accidental relation. Predicamental relation occurs when a substance has an accidental being towards another, whereby that relational (accidental) being is not the natural power of the substance. For example a Father has an accidental relation to the Son. The Father as man, is naturally a rational animal, and is not thereby naturally a Father. This means, man as the nature of man, is rational animal, and man as man is not from the nature of man, a father. In this way, fatherhood, motherhood, sonship and daughterhood are all accidental to the nature of man, and are thereby predicated of man. For example, Peter is a father, Jane is a mother. Both the predicates of father and mother indicate they are accidental to the nature of man.

Transcendental relation occurs when there is a relation within a thing that is ordered to act towards another, from the nature of a thing. For example, the eye is an organ of sight and is thereby from the nature of eye, ordered towards another thing - illuminated colour. Similarly, the other senses are also ordered towards another, and thereby are transcendentally related to another, as to an object.

In God there are no accidents. Therefore in God, there is neither predicamental, nor transcendental relation. All in God is substance. Yet in God it has been revealed that there is opposition and therefore relation. Each relation in God is not accidental, but substantial. Therefore in God, there are three persons, whereby each person is defined as a substantial relation. The F is a substantial relation to the Son. The Son is a substantial relation to the Father, etc. There are four relations in God of F->S, S->F, F&S->HS, and HS->F&S. Each relation, of F/S/HS indicates a divine person as a being towards another.

Now as to the question of what is the difference between a being and person in God? The differences are according to manner of defining person within God.

1) a hypostases or supposit of rational nature. A divine person is a hypostases. The divine being is the being had in common with the three divine hypostases.

2) that which is incommunicable. A divine person is that which is incommunicable. The divine being is that being which is communicated to each of the divine persons.

3) the first subject of attribution. A divine person is that first subject of the divine attributes. The divine being is owned by three divine, first subjects of the F/S and HS.

4) Substantial relation. A divine person is a substantial being towards another. The divine being of each person is not had as a being towards another, but as being had is common. The divine person is then a mode of being, particular to each person, whereby the divine being had in common is being had as essence.

Further Discussion on the Concepts of Being and Person in God.

God is one being, but the one being is had in diverse modes in the three persons. As Christians we cannot say God is not one being. God is being and God is three persons, who are three modes of the one, essential being. God is then according to person, three modes of being, but according to essence, one being. A mode does not indicate a really distinct being had apart from that being. For example, a piece of string may be had according to different modes of straight and curved. The string is the same, but the manner by which the string exists is modally different. For the string to be really distinct, the string would have to be distinct to the chair, or table. The string is not the chair or table, but the string. So too the straight and bent piece of the same string, are modes of the same string. Hence the modes of string do not mean the bent string is really distinct from the straight string.

Analogously, the three divine persons and the divine essence are not really distinct from each other. The divine person is not another thing, distinct from the divine essence, like the table or chair are distinct from the string. In God, all the divine persons and the divine essence are one, but had in different modes, and are therefore distinct by modes of being. God is being. F, S and HS are three beings, modally different to the one essence of God, which is being.

The difficulty in understanding this manner of understanding God, is the modes of the string are accidental, but the modes in God are substantial. We creatures only know of accidental modes of existence, such as the modes of string. Hence, we do not know by experience of any substantial modes of existence. To then say God is three and one according to modes of being, cannot be understood in itself, but only according to analogy from the experience of accidental modes had in creation.

To understand modes of being in God by analogy from creatures only provides some assistance in removing any allegation of contradiction in God. The modes of being in God are simply not knowable in themselves to man. We cannot know what the diverse modes of being in God really are essentially in God, for the distinction made in God according to modes of being is wrapped up in the supernatural mystery of God as both one and three. Therefore when we arrive at the conclusion, along with Basil the Great, that the distinctions of person and nature in God are according to mode, we do so, knowing that we have only obtained some insight into what has been revealed by God, without ever directly knowing the nature of God, nor how God is both three and one.

I could tell you how a car works, then you would both know what a car is and how it works. God has told mankind what He is as both one and three, but not how both one and three work out in the inner life of God. Such an explanation would consist in God explaining the transcendent life to a creature, which is a life that only God, who alone has a supernatural mind, can fully comprehend. Evidently God cannot explain such a reality to creatures, whereby the creature comes to know that reality in God, which is naturally above a creatures comprehension. Only in heaven, when the saints see the divine nature face to face in the beatific vision, whereby the mind of a creature is raised to the supernatural life of God, will the creature know the inner workings of the divine life. So too, God has revealed the Trinitarian life of God as Father, Son and Holy Spirit. In doing so, He has shown man there is a life in God had properly in God alone. Yet man simply cannot fully comprehend in this life, what this inner life of God really is.

Part of the mystery of revelation is God has revealed some truths to man, without revealing the full nature of those truths. For example, God has revealed the Word became flesh, but He has not revealed how this mystery was caused. Likewise God has revealed that man is justified by a free act of grace, yet the nature of grace is not fully understood by men in this life. Similarly, we know of the one and three in God, but we cannot fully comprehend in this life, what that means.

God is one and God is three. God is a Trinity, understood in this life by faith, and in the next life by vision.

JM

Further Questions on the Westminster Confession of Faith.

Some further questions are proposed for the reader to consider with regard to statements made in the Westminster Confession of Faith.

[quote]I. Those whom God effectually calls, He also freely justifies;[1] not by infusing righteousness into them, but by pardoning their sins, and by accounting and accepting their persons as righteous; not for any thing wrought in them, or done by them, but for Christ's sake alone; nor by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, or any other evangelical obedience to them, as their righteousness; but by imputing the obedience and satisfaction of Christ unto them,[2] they receiving and resting on Him and His righteousness by faith; which faith they have not of themselves, it is the gift of God.[3] [/quote]

Question – God’s call is said to be linked directly to justification. Where in the scriptures is God’s calling always linked directly to justification and thereby indicates that all grace of calling is irresistible? If there is one verse that indicates men can act against God’s calling, then irresistible grace is debunked.

Question – If God accounts persons righteous, “not by anything . . . done by them”, how does God account persons righteous by faith, when faith is an act done by the person? Isn’t the Westminster confession (WC) self contradictory here? Why not?

Question – If God accounts righteousness “not for any thing wrought in them, or done by them”, why doesn’t God account all men righteous for Christ's sake alone? After all, if faith is not an act “done by them” [the justified], then faith need not be done, and hence God can justify any person apart from anything that person has done.

Question – If God accounts a man just, apart from any thing “done by them”, why not account faith to the person as well?

[quote] II. Faith, thus receiving and resting on Christ and His righteousness, is the alone instrument of justification:[4] yet is it not alone in the person justified, but is ever accompanied with all other saving graces, and is no dead faith, but works by love.[5] [/quote]

Question – If there are no verses that actually state faith is an instrument, why did God never say faith is an instrument, when faith is essential to justification?

Question – If faith is an instrument, how do you know, if all the evidence in the scriptures is only from prepositions such as “through” or “by” in association with faith?

Question – If faith is an instrument, why would God make such a truth that is so essential, so vague?

Question – If faith is an instrument, why is this truth not found in church history until the reformation? Did the Holy Spirit fail to teach the church until the reformation? If so, how can you be sure the HS is teaching the truth in the WC?

Question – If faith is an instrument, what is the instrument? What does it do? What does it not do?

Question – If faith is an instrument, how does it differ from a virtue such as hope and love?

Question – If faith is an instrument, what are the consequences of the instrument with regard to sin and grace? Should we equate grace with an instrument?

Question – If faith is taught by the WC to be an instrument, but is in fact a virtue and not an instrument then the WC teaching on justification is false, is it not?

Question – If faith “is ever accompanied with all other saving graces” why don’t these graces act as an instrument with faith to justify, when there are no texts that actually teach faith alone, or faith is ever alone?

Question – If faith is alone that justifies and faith is an instrument and there are no explicit texts that teach either of these apparent truths, what certitude does one have that both are true, over any claim that they are merely the inventions of men?

Question – The WC says in another text that scripture interprets scripture via the explicit interpretation the implicit, or more vague texts. If faith as an instrument is only known through implicit or vague texts, how do we know that such is true when there are no explicit texts as required by the method described by the WC?

Question – What assurance does one have that the WC’s teaching is true, when the only scriptural evidence for faith as an instrument is a number of prepositions, assumed to infer faith as an instrument, without any other explicit scriptural support, or without any support from church history? Not much, or none at all.

[quote] [4] JOH 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: ROM 3:28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law. ROM 5:1 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. [/quote]

Question – If faith is an instrument, that alone causes justification, how does faith not exclude the work of Christ? After all, alone means alone and not another cause of justification.

Question – If faith is an instrument, why use the word “alone” when no text in the NT ever associates the phrase “faith alone” with justification, except James 2:24, which denies man is justified by faith alone.

Question – If faith is an instrument, why not hope and love, or any other virtue?

Question – If faith is an instrument, why is not faith a virtue like hope and love?

Question – If faith is an instrument, that is dead without love, why is love not an instrument as well that informs love?

Question – If faith is an instrument, and faith alone justifies, how is faith alone, when it must be informed by love to be living?

Question – If faith is an instrument, accompanied by saving graces that works through love, how does one not lose justification if one sins against love?

Question – If sin against love does not cause a loss of love in union with faith how can love still exist along with sin?

Question – If sin against love does cause a loss of love, how can faith alone justify, without love that is said to be an accompanied saving grace?

[quote] III. Christ, by His obedience and death, did fully discharge the debt of all those that are thus justified, and did make a proper, real and full satisfaction to His Father's justice in their behalf.[6] Yet, in as much as He was given by the Father for them;[7] and His obedience and satisfaction accepted in their stead;[8] and both, freely, not for any thing in them; their justification is only of free grace;[9] that both the exact justice, and rich grace of God might be glorified in the justification of sinners.[10] [/quote]

Question – the justified can sin but not lose justification, can one sin against faith and not lose justification? After all after one has faith, then according to the WC, one cannot lose justification.

Question – If the only sin is a sin against faith that causes a loss of justification, what happens to faith as an instrument? Does the instrument become annihilated, or does God put it back into heaven?

Question – Justification and sanctification are separated in the WC, yet Justification and sanctification are not doctrinally separate in church history. What confidence does one have that the separation of Justification and sanctification are correct, when the separation is an novelty based upon no explicit texts for faith as an instrument and no texts that say faith alone justifies?

[quote]IV. God did, from all eternity, decree to justify all the elect,[11] and Christ did, in the fullness of time, die for their sins, and rise again for their justification:[12] nevertheless, they are not justified, until the Holy Spirit does, in due time, actually apply Christ unto them.[13] [/quote]

Question – If the HS applies Christ unto them and cause them to be holy, what need is there for justification by faith alone? If one is made holy by the HS, why not have the work of the HS as the cause of justification?

Question – If the HS causes both faith and sanctification, why separate the two acts, when both are cause by the same HS?

[quote]V. God does continue to forgive the sins of those that are justified;[14] and although they can never fall from the state of justification,[15] yet they may, by their sins, fall under God's fatherly displeasure, and not have the light of His countenance restored unto them, until they humble themselves, confess their sins, beg pardon, and renew their faith and repentance.[16] [/quote]

Question – If “they can never fall from the state of justification”, then they can act against saving graces of love done in works with faith. So the saving graces of love and good works can be lost, but not justification, which saves. How does this reasoning make any sense?

Question – If one cannot lose justification, then justification is for the elect who are called and have faith. Such means justification is tied into unconditional election of the saints. How can election be unconditional when faith is required as a condition for justification?

[quote]VI. The justification of believers under the Old Testament was, in all these respects, one and the same with the justification of believers under the New Testament.[17] [/quote]

Question – If the justification of believers is the same in the OT and NT, why was king David and Israel both punished for sin when Christ took the punishment for sin as a penal substitute on the cross?

JM

Moon Phases and Orbit Are Incompatible with the Heliocentric Model

The phases of the moon and the Earth's Orbit around the sun are Incompatible with the Heliocentric Model.

The moon phases are portrayed as consistent over a lunar cycle. The cycle is based upon the moons elliptical orbit around the earth as one focus of the ellipse.

Part A

Yet the Earth orbits the sun, like the helicopter orbiting the moving helicopter.

The motion of one helicopter orbiting the moving helicopter produces a spiral shape. This spiral shape of the orbiting helicopter indicates an acceleration and deceleration of the helicopter relative to the straight line helicopter. Comparatively the moon orbits the moving earth and should produce accelerations and decelerations observed on earth that are not compatible with an elliptical orbit. Yet the Helio model claims the moon orbits the moving earth in an ellipse. The incompatibility of the Helio claim of the elliptical moon orbit with a spiral path of the moon against the moving earth invalidates the Helio model.

The nature of a elliptical orbit of the moon as an ellipse is incompetent to account for the motion of the moon around the earth. For every time the moon moves with the earth's orbit, the moon must accelerate, and when the moon orbits against the earth's orbit, decelerate to account for the observed lunar cycle. An elliptical orbit is simply incompatible with an orbiting earth.

The problem becomes worse when we note the moons elliptical orbit processes, which means over a period of time the moons perihelion and aphelion rotate in space around the earth. The rotation of the perihelion and aphelion means the Helio model cannot account for the moon as an elliptical orbit around the earth. For the moons orbit with its ever processing perihelion and aphelion cannot consistently provide for the accelerations and decelerations on a monthly basis in relation to the earth's orbit. Every month the moon must accelerate on the far side of the sun-earth-moon alignment and decelerate on the close side of the sun-moon- earth alignment. Theses accelerations and decelerations are not consistent with an elliptical orbit.

The symmetry of the lunar cycle shown above is incompatible with the spiral motion expected of the moon orbiting the earth is space as indicated above. If the moon orbits the earth via an ellipse, we should observe a non symmetrical shadow on the moon over the lunar cycle. There should be light on the moon for a long time when the sun-earth-moon alignment, and a lighter for a shorter time with the sun-moon-earth alignment.

Part B

The standard elliptical orbit model has a fixed focus. The Helio model requires the earth to move through space with changes in velocity and distance to the sun. Hence the Helio model requires a non fixed focus to the earth as the focus of the moon's elliptical orbit. A non fixed focus of an elliptical orbit is not in accord with the model of the elliptical orbit with a fixed focus. Hence the moon cannot be consistently modeled as being an ellipse and seeing from Earth the accelerations and decelerations expected of an elliptical orbit. 

Also the moon must travel through space in a spiral by -

1) accelerating with the sun-earth-moon alignment whereby the moon slows down against the motion of the earth around the sun, 

and 

2) decelerating with the sun-moon-earth alignment whereby the moon speeds up with the motion of the earth around the sun.

Such accelerations do not exist in the standard elliptical orbit model. Hence, if the Earth based observer sees the moon in an elliptical orbit around the earth, the elliptical orbit is only apparent and not real. For a real elliptical orbit cannot account for the motions in 1) and 2) above.

Alternatively, if the moon travels through space in a spiral as indicated in an above post, then it may be seen from earth as an elliptical orbit. Yet again, the moon's motion through space is not elliptical, but a spiral, which includes the motions of 1) and 2) which are not contained within the standard ellipse model. 

The various motions of the earth and moons are hopelessly complicated and cannot be reduced to a moon elliptical orbit. The procession of the moon's ellipse makes the moon's orbit more complex, and only adds to the problems of 1) and 2) above. For the appropriate accelerations and decelerations are required of the moon's orbit as the moon's ellipse processes. This is simply not possible for an elliptical orbit model.

A possible answer to this problem is to claim the moon is somehow attached to the earth via the phenomenon called gravity. Yet this answer only assumes a phenomenon not accounted for within the model. There is no force, and no phenomenon within the standard elliptical orbit model that accounts for the vacuous assumption that gravity causes the earth, as a moving focus, to then become the stationary focus of the moon's elliptical orbit. The vacuous assumption is essential to any defense of the Helio model, yet the assumption is without merit.

There are no compelling reasons to believe the Helio model can rigorously account for the orbit of the moon. The Helio model has several major weaknesses, one of is the moving focus of the moon's elliptical orbit. A similar problem occurs with all the other planets that orbit the moving solar system barycentre. The motion of the focus of the ellipse means the models must both affirm the motion, but then ignore, or hand wave away the problem under the simplistic assumption that the planets are just carried along with the moving barycentre. Of course to assume this answer is true is to contradict Newtonian mechanics that says acceleration requires a force. Yet the Helio model ignores this central teaching of Newtonian mechanics and claims to solve the problem of the moving focus without the need for forces to account for the ongoing attachment of the planets to imitate a non-moving focus.

If the focus of the ellipse is not moving, then the standard elliptical model, (which is itself problematic) may then be applied without the use of a force to explain the stationary focus. But if the focus moves via a change in velocity, then there is acceleration and an accompanied force that must be inserted into the model to have the accelerated focus correctly modeled within an elliptical orbit model. The force does not exist in the Helio model, which only assumes the earth as the focus of the moon's orbit is always stationary relative to the moon.

Part C

The problem with the Helio model also involves the two claims that 

1) within the Helio model the moon's orbit is an ellipse and 

2) the moon is seen from earth as an ellipse. 

Yet these two claims are incompatible with each other. 

If 1) is true, then 2) is false. 

The moons orbit cannot be an ellipse against a moving earth for the reasons given above. Hence 1) is false. If the moon is observed from earth as an ellipse. Then 2) is true.

If 2) is true, then 1) is false.

If the moon's orbit is observed from earth to be an ellipse, then 2) is true. But the orbit is in fact not an ellipse in space within the Helio model, for the Helio model of an ellipse does not account for the motions within the month to account for the earths orbit around the sun. Hence 1) is false.

The Helio model cannot hold to both 1) and 2) as both true.

Another aspect of the problem - If the moving focus is the earth as a real body with a real mass. As the real body moves through space, the body accelerates. As the accelerating body is the focus of the moon's ellipse, the ellipse must also accelerate along with the earth. The acceleration of the earth along with the moons ellipse means a force must be included within the moon's elliptical orbit, which is systematically ignored if we assume the focus moves, the ellipse moves with it. Simple. But in reality the problem is not so simple if we want to be consistent with Newtonian mechanics. Hence the problem.

If we ignore the acceleration of the focus of the moon's ellipse, we ignore the acceleration of the earth. In turn we ignore the motion of the earth around the sun. Which in turn means we ignore the Heliocentric model, with it's current claims to be the preferred model.

JM

WMAP and Plank are Evidence against the Copernican Principle.

Further evidence against the BB model and in favour of the geocentric model is the article entitled Large-scale alignments from WMAP and Planck

The largest structures in the microwave sky, the quadrupole and octopole, are aligned with one another and with physical directions or planes – the dipole direction and the Ecliptic plane. These alignments, first observed and discussed in the one-year WMAP data, have persisted throughout WMAP’s subsequent data releases, and are now confirmed in the one-year Planck data. On the one hand, this is to be expected: the largest scales are precisely measured and the same CMB sky is observed by both satellites. On the other hand, this is surprising: cleaned, full-sky maps are required to see these alignments, and the removal of foregrounds, along with other systematic effects, makes it challenging to accurately produce full-sky maps on large angular scales.

In this work we have studied the ILC maps from the seven and nine-year WMAP data releases and the NILC, SEVEM, and SMICA cleaned maps from the first-year Planck data release. Qualitatively, the main anomalies detected in earlier WMAP releases remain: the quadrupole and octopole are aligned with each other; the normal to their average plane is aligned with the dipole – the direction of our motion through the Universe; that normal is also close to the Ecliptic plane, so that the average plane of the quadrupole and octopole is nearly perpendicular to the Ecliptic plane. Finally, as can be seen in Fig. 5 which shows the sum of the quadrupole and octopole from the SMICA map, the Ecliptic plane cleanly cuts between a hot and cold spot, thereby separating weaker quadrupole+octopole power in the north Ecliptic hemisphere from the stronger power in the south Ecliptic hemisphere.

In summary, the quadrupole and octopole alignments noted in early WMAP full-sky maps persist in the WMAP seven-year and final (nine-year) maps, and in the Planck first-year full-sky maps. The correlation of the quadrupole and octopole with one another, and their correlations with other physical directions or planes – the dipole, the Ecliptic, the Galaxy – remain broadly unchanged across all of these maps. Consequently, it is not sufficient to argue that they are less significant than they appear merely by appealing to the uncertainties in the full-sky maps – such uncertainties are presumably captured in the range of foreground removal schemes that went into the map making. It similarly seems contrived that the primordial CMB at the last scattering surface is correlated with the local structures imprinted via the Integrated Sachs-Wolfe (ISW) effect in just such a way to generate the observed alignments, as proposed elsewhere (Rakic et al. 2006; Francis & Peacock 2010; Dup ´ e et al. ´

2011; Rassat et al. 2013; Rassat & Starck 2013), even taking for granted the reliability of the procedure to subtract the ISW signal from the map.

Such large scale structure to the universe overturns the Copernican principle and is not predicted by the BB model. Also, according to The axis of evil there have been a number of publications for a preferred axis in the universe.

The homogeneity and isotropy of the Universe – also known as the Copernican principle – is a major postulate of modern cosmology. Obviously this assumption does not imply exact homogeneity and isotropy, but merely that the observed cosmological inhomogeneities are random fluctuations around a uniform background, extracted from a homogeneous and isotropic statistical ensemble. One may expect that the ever improving observations of CMB fluctuations should lead to the greatest vindication of this principle. Yet, there have been a number of disturbing claims of evidence for a preferred direction in the Universe [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10], making use of the state of the art WMAP first year results [11]. These claims have potentially very damaging implications for the standard model of cosmology. It has been suggested that a preferred direction in CMB fluctuations may signal a non-trivial cosmic topology (e.g. [1, 12, 13, 14]), a matter currently far from settled. The preferred axis could also be the result of anisotropic expansion, possibly due to strings, walls or magnetic fields [15], or even the result of an intrinsically inhomogeneous Universe [16]. Such claims remain controversial; more mundanely the observed “axis of evil” could be the result of galactic foreground contamination or large scale unsubtracted systematics (see [17, 18, 19, 20] for past examples). A closer inspection of the emergence of this preferred axis is at any rate imperative.

The article cites the following publications.

[1] A. de Oliveira-Costa et al., 2004, Phys. Rev, D69, 063516
[2] Schwarz D. et al., Phys.Rev.Lett. 93: 221301, 2004.
[3] J. Ralston and P. Jain, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D13, 1857,
2004.
[4] Eriksen H.K. et al., 2004, Astrophys. J, 605, 14
[5] Eriksen H.K. et al., 2004, astro-ph/0401276;
astro-ph/0407271
[6] H. Eriksen et al, ApJ, 612, 633, 2004 [astro-ph/0403098].
[7] Hansen F.K., Banday A.J., G´orski
K.M.,2004,astro-ph/0404206
[8] Land K., Magueijo J., 2004, astro-ph/0405519
[9] Hansen F.K. et al., 2004, astro-ph/0402396
[10] Vielva P. et al., 2003, astro-ph/0310273

There is also another prolem for BB cosmology, in the handedness of galaxies. Longo in a paper entitled - Does the Universe Have a Handedness? proposes a test from the Sloan digital Survey Data.

Does the Universe Have a Handedness?
Michael J. Longo
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109
I have studied the distribution of spiral galaxies in the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) to investigate whether the universe has an overall handedness. A preference for spiral galaxies in one sector of the sky to be left-handed or right-handed spirals would indicate a preferred axis in the Universe. The SDSS data show a strong signal for such an asymmetry. Its axis seems to be strongly correlated with that of the dipole, quadrupole and octopole moments in the WMAP microwave sky survey, whose unlikely alignment has been dubbed "the Axis of Evil"
.
Our Galaxy has its spin axis along the same direction. I propose a mechanism that explains all of these alignments in terms of a large-scale cosmic magnetic field.

He concludes that the universe is asymmetric -

If I maximize the asymmetry by choosing the optimal axis, this becomes an asymmetry of 3.6 σ at an RA of 188°. The probability of this happening by chance is about 0.04%. The SDSS coverage in declination is too limited to say much about the declination other than that it is consistent with δ ~ 0°.

Michael J. Longo
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109

Such asymmetry is contrary to the BB model and the Copernican Principle.

JM

A Proof for only One Universe.

If there is more than one universe, then our universe is divided from other universes.
If our universe is divided from other universes via matter, then matter is part of our universe, and consequently, the other universes are also joined to our universe through matter belonging to our universe.
What is joined to a body through the body is the body.
The other universes are joined to ours as a body to a body, through matter belonging to the physical universe.
Hence other universes are united to our universe.
But other universes united to our universe is not distinct from our universe.
Hence there is only one universe, which is our universe.

Alternatively, other universes are separate from our universe through division from our universe, done without matter.
Yet what is physical, but divided without matter is not divided physically.
And what is physical, but not divided physically is physically one.
Hence universes divided from ours without the medium of matter are not divided from ours.
Hence there is only one universe, which is our universe.

JM

The Problem of the Null Set for Being in Atheism.

Atheism concludes to a null set regarding being.

Being is the fundamental perfection of a thing.Hence a creature that has being, has being as caused by another.The ultimate cause of the being of creatures is God, who is being.Atheism rejects the existence of God, who is both being and the universal cause of being.Hence atheism has no means to account for the existence of any creature whatsoever.Hence for the atheist, anything that exists cannot be rationally accounted for.Therefore atheism logically concludes to being as a null set.

Consequently,

Therefore atheism has no explanatory value whatsoever, and the existence of anything is only understood as a mindless superstition.
Therefore because atheism has no explanatory value regarding the existence of anything,
then atheism is intellectually irresponsible.


JM

Some Questions for Atheists to Consider.

Some questions to clarify atheism.

Does atheism conclude to the existence of 1-7 below?

1 the unmoved mover
2 the uncaused cause
3 the unperfected perfector
4 the unordered orderer
5 the necessary being
6 the universal cause of being
7 the prime being and therefore the supreme being.

If yes, how does atheism conclude to all of 1-7 above as ". . . is not God". For example 1) the unmoved mover is not God, 2) the uncaused cause is not God? etc.

If no, then atheism requires that -

1 there is no unmoved mover, and consequently all motion is explained according to moved movers.

2 there is no uncaused cause, and consequently all causation is explained according to caused causes.

3 there is no unperfected perfector, and consequently all perfection is explained according to perfected perfectors.

4 there is no unordered orderer, and consequently all order is explained according to ordered orderers.

5 there is no necessary being, and consequently all being is explained as contingent being.

6 there is no universal cause of being, and consequently all causation is explained according to caused causes.

7 there is no prime being and therefore there is no supreme being, and consequently all being is explained according to secondary being.

As such, consequent to atheism's conclusions, that all motion, causation, perfection, order, and being is without a prime, how does the atheist explain such? For example, if all causes are caused causes, how is the existence of causation explained?

Atheism either affirms or denies the existence of an infinite being. If affirmed, how does atheism explain the existence of an infinite being without reference or any implication that such a being is God? If denied, how does atheism arrive at the conclusion that an infinite being cannot exist?

If atheism requires there to be no being beyond the universe, how does atheism prove that no being is beyond the universe? 

Also following this question, how does atheism refute pantheism, which says the universe is self sustaining, and therefore God?

If atheism permits there to be a being beyond the universe, how does atheism prove that such a is not God? 

JM

Various arguments on Theistic Topics.

Presented below are a series of arguments in the area of theism.

Argument for - the uncaused cause is pure act.

The uncaused cause is the cause which is not caused
Then what is not caused is ontologically prior to all causes.
Then what is ontologically prior to all causes is not receptive of being.
Then what is not receptive of being has no potency.
Then what has no potency is act without potency.
Then what is act without potency is pure act.
Therefore the uncaused cause is pure act.

Argument for - the supreme being is pure act.

The supreme being is that being with the most being.
What is the most being, is being without limit.
But being without limit is being without the capacity to receive further being.
The capacity to receive further being is potency.
Then the supreme being is that being without potency.
Which is being as act without potency
Which is being as pure act.
Therefore the supreme being is pure act.

Argument for - the uncaused cause is the supreme being.

The uncaused cause is pure act.
The supreme being is pure act.
What is identical in act is identical.
Therefore the uncaused cause is the supreme being.

Argument for - a thing without limit is act without potency as the contrary cause of act.

The modes of being are potency and act.
Act is does be or does do.
Potency is can be or can do.
When a thing is limited, the thing is composed of act and potency.
Act is the cause of the does be of the thing.
Potency is the cause of the can be of the thing.

But what does be, and what can be are contrary causes.
What does be is the cause of the act to be of a thing.
What can be is the cause of the limit of the act of the thing.
For an act, from itself is act, and not the limit of the act.
Then another cause is the cause of the limit of the act, other than the act.
The other cause, is a contrary cause of act, which is potency.
Potency is then the cause of the limit of a thing.
Then a thing without a limited be, is a be in act without the contrary cause of act.
Therefore a thing without limit is act without potency as the contrary cause of act.

Argument for -  there is only one being of pure act.

Pure act is act without limit.
Act without limit is act without potency.
If there are two acts (does be) without limits (can be), then there are two beings of pure act.
But two beings of pure act are two beings of act without limit.
But two beings of act without limit is being without limit, which is pure act.
Then the two beings of pure act, are both pure act.
Yet what is identical in being is identical
Then the two beings of pure act are identical.
Then the identical two beings are identical in being.
What is identical in being is identical, and therefore one being.
Therefore there cannot be more than one being of pure act.
Therefore there is only one being of pure act.

Argument for - - Anything with potency and act must be caused

Act is does be.
Potency is can be.
Act is not potency and potency is not act.
Hence act and potency are diverse modes of being.
Yet in a thing composed of act and potency, act and potency are united.
But act and potency are of themselves diverse.
And what are the causes of diversity are diverse.
And what is the cause of unity, unites the diverse. 
So, whatever are of themselves diverse, but found united, are united by another cause as the cause of unity of the diverse.
But a thing is one with itself, and therefore a unity.
Hence a thing composed of act and potency must be caused by another cause as the cause of unity.
Therefore as the unity of a composed thing is caused by another cause, 
And as a thing can be anything, then anything, must be caused by another cause.
Therefore anything with potency and act must be caused by another.
Therefore anything with potency and act must be caused.

Or more simply in summary form.

That thing which is composed by diverse causes of being, must have the cause of its unity of being in another cause, other than the cause of diversity of being. That other cause, is other than the thing, which itself is a unity of being. Such as being is the prime being, as the universal cause of all being, which is God.

JM

Problems with Newtonian Mechanics

Some problems are presented below on Newtonian Mechanics.

Problem 3 Furthermore, the problems within the gravity formula become more evident when we notice the use of the formula in the above example, whereby gravity is said to conform with Newtons third law, stated as "for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction". This law determines that where there is a two body system, F₁₂ = -F₂₁. Therefore 

1) mass m₁causes the gravity force F₁₂ on mass m₂, and

2) m₁ causes a gravity force <-- -F₂₁ --->on mass m₁, with a vector direction opposite of <-- F₁₂.

The manner of using m₁ within the gravity formula, means m₁ is both -

i) a cause of gravity acting by m₂ attracting m₁ towards m₂.

ii) a cause of gravity acting by m₁ attracting m₂ towards m₁.

The simultaneous use of m₁ as a single principle, causing two opposing forces is fundamentally at odds with the nature of causation, which requires 

1) a single principle produces only one effect 

2) contrary principles produce contrary effects.

3) a single principle does not produce contrary effects. This is contrary to what Newtonian mechanics posits for the action of m₁ in F₁₂ and -F₂₁.

Similar conclusions can be made about the use of m₂ within the gravity formula. 

Question - How does a Newtonian defend the notion of Newtonian Gravity in light of mass producing contrary gravitational effects, disconcordant with the laws of causation?

Problem 3b

Eq 1) F12 = Gm1m2/r^2

Eq 2) F21 = Gm1m2/r^2

Newtonian mechanics says that "for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction". Within the acceleration fields caused by m1 and m2, each field is said to accelerate with vectors in opposite directions. But in equations 1 and 2, the vector opposition of the fields must be ignored, and thereby not considered under the principle of action and reaction. For example F12 = Gm1m2/r^2 assumes the field of Gm1/r^2 alone is relevant to m2. Likewise F21 = Gm1m2/r^2 assumes the field of Gm2/r^2 alone is relevant to m1. Both formulas ignore the opposing field of acceleration and thereby, do not apply the principle of "for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction". In doing so, the fields are not consistently used in equations 1 and 2 as an action and opposing reaction.

Hence Newtonian Mechanics is inconsistent with its own principle of "for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction", making the theory invalid.

Problem 4 The application of multiplying m₁ with m₂, along with the gravity constant indicates the force of gravity is simply not caused by mass attraction as we are told in Newtonian mechanics. As gravity is both far greater than an individual mass, (as indicated by multiplying the masses) and far less than any individual mass magnitude (as indicated by multiplying the masses by G), then the subsequent disproportion of individual mass values to gravity force calculated by -

i) multiplying the masses to find the value of F, and

ii) multiplying the masses with the very small constant G, to find the value of F

indicate gravity is a force that is simultaneously far greater than any individual mass (i) and far smaller than any individual mass (ii). The manner of using mass in the gravity formula, along with the gravity constant indicates gravity is not caused by mass attraction as assumed within Newtonian mechanics.

Question - How does a Newtonian defend the postulate that gravity is caused by mass attraction, when the force of gravity is an effect that is disproportionate to any particular mass as shown in (i) and (ii)?

Problem 5 We also note the incongruity of the Newtonian gravity formula when we apply the above two body example and make m₁ = 1/2 m₂. In this example, combined with Newton's third law, we note that F₁₂ = -F₂₁, whereby -

1) mass m₁ is a cause of the same magnitude of gravity force, at both centers of mass at m₁ and m₂.

2) mass's m₁ and m₂ cause of the same magnitude of gravity force, yet because m₁ = 1/2 m₂, mass m₁ should attract m₂, less than m₂ attracts m₁, but does not.

Therefore if Newtonian gravity is caused by attraction of the masses, the masses m₁ and m₂ are unequal and therefore should cause unequal attraction of the opposing mass, but do not according to Newtons third law. The incongruity within Newtonian mechanics (NM) means Newton's third law must be used inconsistently with the principle that Newtonian gravity is caused by mass attraction. The problem is further outlined if we note the simple example of a man standing on the earth. According to NM, both -

1) the man and the earth are mutually and equally attracted to each other according to Newton's third law, whereby the gravity force F_man = -F_earth, where F_man = Gm_manm_earth/r²_{man, earth} and -F_earth = Gm_earthm_man/r²_{earth, man}, yet

2) the man and the earth unequally attract each other, whereby the man will always fall towards the earth and never the earth towards the man.

The inconsistency of laws within NM means 1) NM requires the gravity force within the man-earth system to be equal, but also requires the bodies to fall towards each other unequally. The convoluted, illogical and therefore almost unintelligible use mass, center of mass and distance within the Newtonian gravity formula, along with Newton's third law means Newtonian gravity is almost completely unintelligible. 

Question - How does a Newtonian defend the notion of Newtonian Gravity in light of the inconsistent application of the gravity as caused by the masses and Newtons third law, when the masses are not equal?

Problem 6 The gravity formula supposes gravity is caused by mass attraction. As mass is a property of a body, then the principle of mass attraction is a cause intrinsic to the nature of a body. If we assume the formula is consistent with the Newtonian principle of mass attraction, then -

1) the formula contains two mass variables m₁ and m₂.

2) the two mass variables indicate gravity is caused by two masses.

3) the formula F₂₁ = -Gm₁m₂/r²₂₁ describes the force caused by m₂ on m₁

According to the principle of mass attraction, gravity force caused by m₂ on m₁ must be from a principle intrinsic to m₂. For a cause intrinsic to a body must be derived as a cause only from that singular body. Yet according to F₂₁, the gravity force caused by m₂ on m₁ involves the additional causes of -

1) m₁, whereby the m₁ mass is extrinsic to m₂ according to principle (as one body is extrinsic to another body), but intrinsic to m₂ according to magnitude of F₂₁ (whereby the quantity of m₁ is assumed to interact along with the quantity of m₂ as indicated in the variables of m₁ and m₂ in the F₂₁ equation).

2) the universal gravitational constant G.

As both (i) m₁ and (ii) G are extrinsic to m₂, the formula for F₂₁ which describes the force of gravity by m₂ on m₁, then includes causes of the gravity force that are foreign to the fundamental principle of Newtonian gravity as caused by mass attraction. As these two (i and ii) causes are extrinsic to the body containing a mass m₂, then a truer principle of Newtonian gravity is gravity is caused by -

1) intrinsic mass attraction of m₂, 

2) extrinsic magnitude of mass attraction m₁ supplemental to that of mass m₂, and 

3) a universal constant of G, which is extrinsic to the mass, m₂.

Question - How does one defend the Newtonian definition of gravity as mass attraction ( as a property intrinsic to the body of m₂), when the formula for universal gravity contains variables of a foreign mass, and a gravity constant, that are both extrinsic to the mass of a body m₂?


Problem 7 The universal law of gravity is said to be derived by Newton, based upon -

1) the law of 1/r², derived in Newton's Principia, using geometry. This method is deductive using the principles of geometry to arrive at a conclusion that is certain, assuming there is a centripetal force acting from the mass to the ellipse focus. If the assumption of centripetal force is true, then it follows from geometry that gravity force is proportional to 1/r².

2) Kepler's laws of proportion concerning orbital period in relation to orbital radius, deduced inductively from observation and stated as "The square of the orbital period of a planet is directly proportional to the cube of the semi-major axis of its orbit. P² = k r³. Kepler's law is formulated as deduced inductively from observations of the planetary motions. If the observations and assumed elliptical motions are both correct, then the planets move according to the proportions given.

The weaknesses in this method are -

i) It is never proven that neither mass, nor centripetal force are real causes in relation to gravity. Both mass and centripetal force are assumed to be true within the model and derivation of the gravity formula F=GMm/r². If mass does not cause gravity, then centripetal force is not real. If centripetal force is not real, then mass attraction is not real either.

ii) There is no mechanism to cause the centripetal force within the Newtonian model.

iii) The method isolates the motions of the planet and sun as a two body systems and does not justify this isolation with any self checking mechanism within the model.

iv) The mathematical conclusions reached by 1) and 2) are by diverse methods, with each method containing its own assumptions that are independent of either point 1) or 2).

It is said that the formula is derived from the maths of the proportions given in 1) F= k/r² and 2) P² = k r³ above. Yet such proportions may be determined by making other assumptions such as the following -

A) Gravity is caused by the interaction of space between bodies. Or is caused by the local flow of space.

B) centripetal force is not required between a body and the ellipse focus.

C) gravity should account for the local system and thereby account for the universality and the locality of gravity.

In making these assumptions contrary to Newtonian mechanics, we would arrive at a different maths model for gravity. 

Question - How confident can one be that NM is a true model of gravity when i to iv above may well be wrong?

Some Points on the Problematic Nature of Newtonian Mechanics.


We can discover the problematic nature of Newtonian gravity from inspection of the two body problem of m₁ and m₂. The problems are exposed in the points as follows -

1) If F₁₂ is caused by m₂ acting on m₁, how is F₁₂ acting at m₁ then proportional to both m₁ and m₂?

2) Wouldn't it be more logical for the gravity force F₁₂ from m₂, to be only proportional to m₂?

3) If F₁₂ and F₂₁ are gravity forces caused by m₁ and m₂, how are those forces both equally dependent upon the magnitudes of m₁ and m₂, when the forces are at a distance of r, and acting in opposite directions?

4) If there is no real basis for the magnitudes of m₁ and m₂ being multiplied to attain the values of F₁₂ and F₂₁, what confidence can there be for the reality of G and any experiment performed to calculate G? After all, the gravity equation is said to be mathematically derived from Kepler's third law and Newton's 1/r² law. Yet such derivation is based upon the assumptions of centripetal force, action at a distance, and mass attraction, which are never proven.

5) Newtonian orbital mechanics is based upon the assumption that inertia is an innate property of a body whereby the body will have a tangential velocity that is always constant. These two assumptions are fundamental to Newtonian orbital mechanics, but are never proven to be real. In fact (from memory) Newtonian mechanics posits that centripetal force is a fictional force. Hence the entire Newtonian orbital mechanics system requires at least one fictional force for the system to be mathematically viable. Hence the Newtonian system is problematic.

6) The third Newtonian law that says for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction may well be a principle that does not apply to gravity. Such a conclusion may be found by comparing the forces F₁₂ and F₂₁, which are said to be equal and opposite, even when

i) m₁ and m₂ are unequal. 

and

ii) F₁₂ and F₂₁ are at distance r, apart and therefore cannot truly be said to be an action and opposing reaction. Typically a force and its opposing re-action are tightly united, as say in a body hitting a wall. Yet with gravity, the force is assumed to not act in a similar, tight manner.

As i) and ii) are problematic, then the assumed universality of Newtons third law should only be applied after demonstrating that the law applies to gravity. Of course the validity of the law is merely assumed and then applied to the gravity force, but never demonstrated.

7) When Newton's third law and mass attraction are combined, masses m₁ and m₂ are then the causes of gravity forces, F₁₂ and F₂₁ acting in opposing directions. Doesn't anyone at least question the veracity of two masses causing forces in opposite directions, when a singular mass can only attract in one direction? How is such a leap of logic even possible, let alone viable?

8) Mass attraction means a physical cause within a body must act within another body. Such a force is almost like a magical -

i) action at a distance, and

ii) a pseudo, qualitative compenetration of bodies, whereby mass attraction as a quality caused by the mass of the first body, then passes from the first body to act in the second body, to attract the second body to the first. Such a physical mechanism certainly requires an amount of faith to believe really does exist. 

Of course according to Newtonian mechanics, this quality of mass attraction within the first body, somehow interacts to multiply with the magnitude of the same quality of mass attraction found in the second body, which in turn causes the same gravity force in the second body (but in the opposite direction to the first body), even if the second body has only half the mass of the first body. Such a property within physical bodies seems to require the Newtonian universe to have bodies know what they are attracted to and thereby cause A) an exact quality of attraction to satisfy Newtons third law, and B) which then causes an attraction within the second body, in the opposite direction in the second body in proportion to the magnitude of both body masses. What a mind bending system is Newtonian gravity. The exacting nature of the forces required to balance the Newtonian system and the quasi knowledge of all matter, tends to promote a physics animism based gravity force within matter. Its as though matter must intuitively know what amount of quality to cause within each individual body and to correctly interact with other bodies to produce the forces required to satisfy Newtons laws and equations.

The problematic nature of Newtonian Mechanics lends support to posit another form of physical cause of gravity in local aether flow, which avoids the problems exposed above.

JM