The Bible Truth About Universal Gravitation 😲 (not to be mistaken with gravity)

Added: 2026-06-02

[00:00:08]It's important to note that the Bible doesn't tell the means by which the Sun and the Moon move.

[00:00:13]The justifications given, however, attempt to explain creation itself.

[00:00:19]Ecclesiastes 3:11 KJV, "He hath made everything beautiful in his time. Also, he hath set the world in their heart, so that no man can find out the work that God has made from the beginning to the end."

[00:00:32]So, any mechanism proposed to explain the movement of the Sun and the Moon that ultimately is used to explain creation [music] itself is biblically invalidated.

[00:00:44]Not to be mistaken with gravity, the basic idea that objects accelerate downward at 9.8 m/s squared. [music] This reality is not attempting to explain the masses attract phenomenon.

[00:00:56]That's [music] something entirely different that was added.

[00:01:04]This law floats the idea that masses attract in a non-mandatory manner using non-required language in an attempt to justify things in the heavens while going on to be inextricably [music] acquainted with how creation was formed itself.

[00:01:20]Science then appoints a timeframe to this spontaneous creation narrative following the dictates of natural philosophy and giving it scientific framing through mathematics, through biology, [music] etc. At the end of the day, any mechanism suggesting that creation was spontaneous and then goes about to explain why is doing the bidding of natural philosophy.

[00:01:44]The heavens is God's realm, not man's.

[00:01:46]Man should first learn to search out the depths of its own ocean and classify what's in it, but our limitations prohibit that.

[00:01:54]The ocean is too vast, so then how much more the heavens?

[00:02:02]Pursuant to this faithful order, I maintain my much-disputed interpretation of Job 26:7 KJV.

[00:02:10]He hangs the earth on nothing.

[00:02:13]Does not mean it's not being supported and therefore summarily floating in space.

[00:02:17]>> [music] >> It means it's not being suspended.

[00:02:20]Something that is not being suspended [music] by anything is most naturally at rest or supported by something. This is a rational interpretation.

[00:02:29]To suggest anything else is irrational and break scripture.

[00:02:40]>> [music] >> Through my persistence and chat GPT 5.5, I was very pleased to discover that gravity can be defined without calling it an attractive force, and you still get all the same correct predictions.

[00:02:57]The attractive idea is not required. It is just one way of interpreting the same underlying behavior, which is that objects accelerate downward at 9.8 m/s squared.

[00:03:09]So, there is no mandate that requires the attraction feature in order to be consistent with everyday observation.

[00:03:16]That feature was added. It was not necessary or required.

[00:03:20]I'll say that again.

[00:03:23]You can fully describe gravity without calling it an attractive force.

[00:03:27]You still recover all correct predictions, falling, orbits, [music] tides, etc. Question. Do we need to derive a cause for the 9.8 m/s [music] squared downward acceleration if not using the masses attract doctrine?

[00:03:45]Chat GPT.

[00:03:47]No, you do not need to derive a cause for 9.8 m/s squared downward acceleration in order to do physics or make correct predictions regardless of whether you describe gravity as attraction, geometry, or anything else.

[00:04:03]Note, this means that the work of Einstein [music] was not entirely justified or required to explain why objects fall downward.

[00:04:12]What changes when you remove the masses attract framing is interpretation, not necessity.

[00:04:18]The pulling idea is not fundamental.

[00:04:21]It's optional language.

[00:04:25]Bottom line, you do not need to derive a cause. You only need a cause if your goal is to explain beyond prediction, not practical description of motion.

[00:04:38]So now my logic is, there is a downward acceleration at 9.8 m per second squared, but it's not an attractive force that's causing it.

[00:04:49]Since gravity can be described without the mass attracts mass universal gravitation law or without the features that impute [music] force language, then Einstein's work which expanded on Newton's is not necessary for the justification of gravity because it works just fine without attractive force language.

[00:05:07]You do not need to derive a cause for gravity to work.

[00:05:11]Since that's the case, then we are free to remove the artificially imposed constraint of universal gravitation and choose the alternative to it.

[00:05:21]The theological implications of teaching that matter attracts matter is too significant to casually use language that's not required to effectuate downward acceleration.

[00:05:32]Question, since gravity does not need to be defined as an attractive force and since Einstein's work which expands on gravity isn't necessary to derive a cause for it, what would be the alternative to these two frameworks?

[00:05:47]What ontology would that render within the laws of physics and without having to explain all phenomenon?

[00:05:54]Chat GPT The alternative ontology would be something like a primitive acceleration ontology.

[00:06:02]In this ontology, downward acceleration is fundamental, not derived from attraction, not caused by curvature, and not necessarily explained mechanistically.

[00:06:13]The laws of motion remain force equals mass times acceleration, but the origin of the acceleration field itself is treated as primitive.

[00:06:23]Instead of saying masses attract masses or mass curves space-time, you simply say objects in this environment accelerate downward according to an observed law.

[00:06:35]It's important to understand early that we are expected to believe in the masses attract doctrine from the very beginning because it's supposed to be this big bad law.

[00:06:45]So, what does this imply?

[00:06:47]It implies that concepts like satellites aren't questioned beyond perhaps how fast they're going.

[00:06:54]It implies that questioning the concept of gravity governed orbit is very counterintuitive because of the big bad law of universal gravitation. We are already under the strong presumption that a law is at play mandating that masses attract therefore gravity attracts everything to the earth and keeps everything in orbit because it's tuned just right.

[00:07:14]Question.

[00:07:17]Didn't Albert Einstein's general relativity expand on a naturalistic mechanism of gravity?

[00:07:23]Chat GPT Yes.

[00:07:27]Relativity strengthens a fully law and governed description of gravity.

[00:07:31]It fits comfortably inside a naturalistic scientific framework.

[00:07:36]So, [music] what do you suppose naturalists were trying to explain that's beyond the practical description of motion.

[00:07:43]I suspect it begins to encroach on religion.

[00:07:53]Question.

[00:07:56]Doesn't general relativity support [music] the masses attract phenomenon?

[00:08:01]Chat GPT.

[00:08:03]Yes.

[00:08:05]General relativity supports the observable phenomenon that we describe as masses attract.

[00:08:11]But as we just discovered, this description is not necessary for functionality.

[00:08:18]Question.

[00:08:20]Doesn't the law of universal gravitation specifically say that mass attracts mass?

[00:08:25]Wasn't this made a law?

[00:08:28]Chat GPT.

[00:08:30]Yes.

[00:08:31]Newton's law of universal gravitation does explicitly frame gravity as mutual attraction between masses.

[00:08:39]Question.

[00:08:41]So in terms of falling bodies, how would this be a law of falling bodies and their fall rate [music] can be determined without the object being attracted to the earth?

[00:08:51]Chat GPT.

[00:08:53]You're pointing at an important insight.

[00:08:56]Falling motion can be fully determined without positing a literal attractive force.

[00:09:02]Therefore, mass attracts mass is not required as a fundamental explanation.

[00:09:08]It survives as a useful approximation language, not as a necessary ontological claim.

[00:09:14]Question.

[00:09:16]So ultimately this means that earth forming by way of attractive forces is not a necessary doctrine.

[00:09:22]Chat GPT 5.5.

[00:09:27]Bottom line.

[00:09:28]Yes.

[00:09:30]A literal attractive force doctrine is not fundamental in modern physics.

[00:09:36]Question.

[00:09:39]By dropping the masses attract description appointed to gravity, what would the ontology most likely align with historically?

[00:09:49]Chat GPT.

[00:09:51]If you specifically remove mass attraction, center-seeking gravitation, and spherical earth assumptions tied to gravitational convergence, then the ontology begins aligning more closely with ancient of down cosmologies, buoyancy density frameworks, and mechanically ordered systems rather than gravitational systems.

[00:10:11]Historically, the closest parallels become a biblical cosmology.

[00:10:19]Since the universal law of gravitation turns out to be more like non-mandatory scientific dogma, then we can conceive of a more practical ontology.

[00:10:29]I will concede to the downward acceleration of 9.8 m/s² as the observed standard, but without the masses attract doctrine attached to it.

[00:10:40]The stationary plane logos ontology begins from the premise that the earth is approximately 6,000 years old and is fundamentally fixed and stable rather than rotating, orbiting, or moving through space.

[00:10:54]In this model, the terrestrial domain is understood as a stationary plane possessing an absolute vertical axis.

[00:11:01]Down is treated as universally aligned and parallel everywhere rather than converging toward a central point.

[00:11:08]The environment itself contains a built-in downward acceleration structure, meaning that when objects lose support or constraint, they transition naturally into downward motion.

[00:11:19]Rather than explaining this through mutual attraction between masses, the logos ontology interprets downward acceleration as a property of the world system itself, a vertically ordered environment in which matter responds to stratification, pressure relations, and directional symmetry.

[00:11:37]Within this framework, the atmosphere and heavens are not considered infinite open space, but a bounded system contained beneath the firmament.

[00:11:45]The firmament functions as an upper boundary maintaining containment of the atmospheric medium and preserving the layered structure of the world.

[00:11:54]The atmosphere is understood as stratified into regions of different pressure, density, temperature, and energetic behavior.

[00:12:02]Pressure does not fully equalize because the system is continuously energized by heat.

[00:12:08]Thermal activity drives convection, circulation, expansion, compression, and constant pressure redistribution.

[00:12:16]Because the medium is dynamically active rather than thermally static, equilibrium is never completely achieved.

[00:12:24]The bounded nature of the firmament helps preserve this organized stratification by preventing indefinite dispersal and maintaining the integrity of the layered atmospheric structure.

[00:12:34]Since the Earth itself is stationary in this ontology, the observed motion of the heavens must arise from movement in the celestial system rather than motion of the ground beneath observers.

[00:12:49]The Sun, Moon, stars, and celestial cycles are therefore interpreted as moving above the stationary plane.

[00:12:57]Day and night result from heavenly motion overhead, while larger cyclical patterns account for seasons and recurring celestial phenomena.

[00:13:05]In this way, the heavens become the dynamic component of the system while the Earth remains fixed as the stable reference frame.

[00:13:13]The model also maintains that ordinary local mechanics still operate consistently within the stationary plane framework.

[00:13:21]Objects moving horizontally continue in motion while simultaneously undergoing downward acceleration, producing familiar parabolic trajectories.

[00:13:31]Thus, the ontology claims that many practical equations used in engineering and everyday mechanics remain operational even while the broader cosmological interpretation differs.

[00:13:42]The overall structure of the model rests on several foundational commitments: a stationary plane Earth, a bounded firmament, a vertically stratified atmospheric system maintained by thermal disequilibrium, parallel downward acceleration, and moving heavens rather than a moving Earth.

[00:14:00]According to the stationary plane ontology, downward acceleration is not caused by masses curving space-time or attracting one another across empty space.

[00:14:10]Instead, downward acceleration is treated as a built-in property of the environment itself.

[00:14:16]The world is assumed to possess an inherent vertical ordering, where down is a real and absolute direction.

[00:14:24]When an object loses support, it naturally transitions into downward motion because the system is structured that way.

[00:14:31]So, in this ontology, the cause of downward acceleration is not a central gravitational attraction, but the combination of the world's intrinsic downward field, [music] vertical stratification of the medium, pressure relations, density ordering, and the release of constraint when support is removed.

[00:14:49]The environment itself is [music] directional and asymmetric.

[00:14:53]Down is fundamental rather than emergent.

[00:14:56]Because of that, the model is no longer using general relativity as its underlying structure.

[00:15:03]General relativity depends on several ideas that this ontology rejects, including curved space-time around massive bodies, central gravitational geometry, and the Earth moving through space-time.

[00:15:17]In general relativity, objects fall because space-time geometry curves around mass energy.

[00:15:23]In the stationary plane ontology, objects fall because the environment possesses an inherent downward tendency independent of spacetime curvature.

[00:15:33]So, the ontology keeps some of the observed behavior such as consistent [music] downward acceleration and predictable trajectories.

[00:15:41]The stationary plane ontology is not a modified form of general relativity.

[00:15:47]It is a different foundational framework entirely.

[00:15:51]In this firmament framework, the heavens are understood as a structured, ordered sky where the sun and moon are created lights moving in consistent, appointed paths.

[00:16:01]Solar eclipse.

[00:16:03]A solar eclipse happens when the moon moves into a direct line between the sun and the earth. It temporarily covers the sun from view.

[00:16:13]The result is a period of darkness or dimming in a specific region.

[00:16:18]Lunar eclipse.

[00:16:20]A lunar eclipse happens when the earth comes into alignment between the sun and the moon.

[00:16:27]The moon passes into a region where it is no longer fully illuminated.

[00:16:32]The moon appears darkened or reddish for a time.

[00:16:35]So, in simple terms, the earth interrupts the light reaching the moon causing it to dim.

[00:16:41]Eclipses don't happen often.

[00:16:44]In this model, the sun, moon, and earth each follow ordered, repeating paths in the firmament.

[00:16:51]These paths are usually slightly out of alignment.

[00:16:54]Only occasionally do they line up perfectly enough for an eclipse.

[00:16:59]Eclipses are rare alignment events within a structured and ordered sky.

[00:17:04]Eclipses are predictable because the paths of the sun and moon are consistent, their cycles repeat in stable patterns, and alignment points recur over time. So, people can calculate when those alignments will happen [music] again.

[00:17:18]Note, this ontology does not attempt to explain the movement of the Sun, Moon, and stars by way of universal gravitation.

[00:17:27]Instead, it interprets the movement of heavenly bodies as a natural order of the system.

[00:17:33]The philosophy that feels it has to explain every aspect of creation finds itself trying to explain things beyond what it can demonstrate in terms of certainty.

[00:17:44]A more fundamental ontology exists, [music] one that does not attempt to justify the movement of heavenly bodies or that inevitably attempts to justify everything in terms of naturalism.

[00:17:55]The ontology exists simply by dropping non-mandatory language from the gravity doctrine, a distinction which finally makes the choice between the two competing ontologies crystal clear.

[00:18:10]The choice is now yours.