IF
NOT, THEN WHY? 3: BENEDICT XVI, THE MALACHY PREDICTION AND CLOSED TIMELIKE
WORLDLINES
B. Lukács
President of the Matter
Evolution Subcommittee
of the
CRIP RMKI H-1525
Bp. 114. Pf. 49,
lukacs@rmki.kfki.hu
ABSTRACT
Sometimes a theory is impossible, so cannot
be true; and still it works. Surely something mimics Truth; it is then
interesting and worthwhile to see, what mimics what. The Malachy Prophecy seems
to work, while the underlying assumptions seerm
physically improbable.
0. ON THE EVOLUTION IN
SCIENCES
While I believe in
Scientific Truth, I do not believe in the truth of any particular theory used just now. We know that any particular
theory used just now has substituted a previous theory proven wrong not too far
back in the past. The general (and convenient) belief/expression is that the present theory is more true than the
previous one; and I think this is generally true in quantitative sense: the new
one answers more questions than the old one, or gives more accurate
predictions, or simpler to apply &c. However in qualitative sense the
continuous improvement is often not true.
In Physics Democritus
used an atomistic description which we
now like to call correct, and with this scheme he was practically unable to
give explanations or predictions correct either in quantitative or in
qualitative sense. After a century came Aristotle, telling that atomism is
probably incorrect and surely unimportant; he used a strongly inhomogeneous
world picture with a preferred center and rest at
proper place as preferred state of motion; physicists generally like now to call this incorrect but
still Aristotle was able to give lots of good predictions in qualitative sense
even if few enough correct quantitatively. His system survived 1900 years and
then Galileo disproved it. Based on Galileo's rather semiquantitative
observations and arguments Newton then demolished the Aristotelian physics
(except in Thermodynamics, to be sure), and the new one showed a Democritean structure, with mass points moving with never
diminishing momenta (in sums), with forces depending
on relative distances of agents, and not on distances from preferred points of
space, and Newton's World was infinite, the same everywhere, and unevolving. Philosophers then were eloquent in jubilating on old Aristotle overthrown.
At the latest time as
1926 Relativity & Quantum Physics demolished
As for Gravity, it
seems that Democritus did not know what is
it (I am deliberately ungrammatical, but it would be even worse to use Past
Tense for an Ultimate Truth, even if we do not know It for sure, and my tenses
are correct in Uralic languages anyway). Maybe some
interactions of the small atoms? Aristotle told that Gravity is the
relation of the piece of matter to geometry of Space.
In some areas of
Physics now theories live 5 years in average. When I was choosing topics for my
BA dissertation (that was in 1969) the most interesting Particle Physics title
was "ρ-π-π Vertices in the Third Times Modified Veneziano Model". I thought maybe that was my last
time to choose freely, so I would like something more True than a third times
modified model, so I opted for Gravitational Collapse. When I am writing this,
General Relativity survived 91 years in
unmodified form, but my young colleagues do not know what is the Veneziano model modified any times. However signals are
clear that even General Relativity will change, hopefully in my life.
As for Astronomy,
Pythagoras believed that Earth revolved around either Sun or the Central Fire.
Aristotle believed that Sun revolved around Earth. Aristarchus
supported Pythagoras, but in vain. Copernicus believed that Earth revolved
around Sun, Galileo supported him and Church believed that She
condemned Galileo for making the support indecently stubborn. Then after Newton
Copernicus' scheme was accepted, but in 1915 Einstein showed that the question
"who revolves around whom" has no meaning at all, not being a
covariant statement. Then in 1992 Church observed anomalies in the process of
Galileo's trial and annulled the verdict in a backward acting way. What is
Truth in this question?
And Physics &
Astronomy are our best Sciences. As for the Age of Earth pre-Classic Greeks
guessed some thousands of years, Aristotle Infinity, Alexander of Aphrodisias more than a million years, Early Middle Age
5000 years, XVIIIIth century mainly on
physical arguments ~10,000 years, XIXth
century on physical, chemical & geological arguments 40 million years, which
then jumped to a billion, and then gradually to 4.55 billion years.
For Economy I rather
would not list best theories telling opposite Truths. In
Scholarship look for National Histories.
So at a given temporal point we cannot
answer questions about Ultimate Truth, although in average Science goes forward. But Ultimate Questions cannot be
answered in average; they should be answered Yes or No.
Orman
Willard van Quine tells us [1] that changes in
Science follow a certain Parsimony. We have lots of
assumptions when building up a Theory. Then, if an observation contradicts a
prediction, we change some assumption, but those which are the
"cheapest". So the Ptolemaic World Scheme was improved and improved
by introducing more and more epicycles and excentric cycles
for 1500 years; and only then took Copernicus over.
But even this is not
so simple. Historians of Science tell that the Aristotlean
World Picture collapsed when Galileo's telescope resolved Milky Way into
individual stars. They are obviously neglecting the original works of
Aristotle. De Caelo gives an explanation for Milky
Way, and from this explanation the prediction would have been (nobody applied
Aristotle's theory to telescopes) that after some magnification the picture
will be light spots surrounded by darkness [2], as it was. Because neither
Galileo nor his opponents were fluent in Aristotle, they agreed that there was
something against Him. Now we know that there was, but they should not have yet
known.
So it seems that a
kind of "scientific fashion" is involved in each Yes/No choice. Maybe
if we could observe the many-world histories of
But we can remember
it. And this view gives a Prediction. There may be cases when somebody quite
good a scientist/scholar invents a theory whose fundaments seem quite
impossible for us; and still he is not a madman, and
his theory can explain a lot of facts. Maybe not so much as the Best Theory,
but still, it is surprisingly good compared to Common Opinion that it is
Fundamentally Wrong. And in a century futureward...?
1.
INTRODUCTION
Since Pope John Paul
II died on April 2, 2005, the cardinals convened and elected the next Pope,
successor of St. Peter, on the 18th. The new Pope is ex-cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, from Bavaria, who took the throne name Benedict
XVI.
I work mainly in Heavy
Ion Physics, General Relativity and Thermodynamics; the discussion of the
person of the new Pope does not belong to the above disciplines (but his throne
name does). owever, he seems
to be either the last or the last-but-one Pope of the famous Malachy Prophecy, and prophecies do belong to General Relativity.
This is the reason for writing a brief comment.
When I am typing this
text, the
I write down these
numbers to show that I have no prediuction of my own
because I am not involved in politology. I am simply a physicist, theoretical, who
started in General Relativity. (I emphasize the last, because the profession
has some particle physicists, routinely making GR and cosmology statements.
But, according to the GR paradigm, Gravity is not the 4th interaction, but
the structure of the manifold. Sapienti sat...)
For any case, we are
hearing explanations for the more probable success of Obama.
One is the Iraq & Afganistan War; they have
already lasted longer than was expected, and they were started by a Republican
administration, so some dissatisfied people may prefer
now a Democrat. Also, just now there are serious financial problems, recession
is expected and the Dow Jones index is going downward. Again, dissatisfied
people may prefer CHANGE and Obama is more change
than McCain is. And so on.
However, the experts
of politology had an interesting explanation for the
2000 & 2004 successes of Bush Jr.: the votes of
the Evangelically Reborn.
It is rather difficult
to decide from
2.
SOLA SCRIPTURA, MIDDLE EASTERN PROBLEMS & SO ON
Catholics must not take the Bible literally. Maybe lots of them do; due to lack of theological
education. But "Sola Scriptura"
is a Protestant slogan, coined by Luther. If everybody can understand the
message of the written text of the Bible and there is no other source of the
Wisdom, then there is no need for an ecclestical order
(although a few specialists are still handy in the same way as lawyers &
judges are handy even if the law books are written). On the other hand the
Catholic Church always and continuously have been
telling that the Scripture is only one source of the two; the other is
Tradition.
Let us take an
example: Mary, wife of Joseph, mother of Jesus. (I chose this unusual
identification, because until this point everybody is in consensus except some
hard-core Marxists who teach that Jesus did not exist, so maybe
Mary neither.) Now: what about the virginity
of Mary? When did it end, if at all? The question is simple,
there is only one true answer, even if our non-religious knowledge is poor.
E.g. lots of religions give definite answers even if diverse ones.
Non-Abrahamic people do not generally have any opinion. As for
the Abrahamic faiths, Moslims
tell that Mary was the wife of Joseph, and Jesus (Isa
ben Miriam) was a prophet, so surely he was the son
of Joseph coming from a respectable family. So Miriam/Mary was
surely virgin until the bridal night; and then no more.
As for the religions
originating from Moses, I do not know the Samaritan opinion, but I guess it is
close to the Karaite opinion. The Karaite
opinion is close to the Moslim one. As for the
Jewish/Rabbanite answer I have been informed that
there is no obligatory opinion about the details of the Joseph-Mary marriage;
but anyway, Jesus was the firstborn of Mary, and he was conceived on the usual
way.
Now we have arrived at
the Christian faiths. Unitarians have in this point more or less the Moslim opinion: Jesus was the son of Joseph, and Mary was a
good wife & mother. So Mary was virgin until the bridal night and no more.
(Here I specifically mean Unitarians in
But the majority of
Christians soon in the first centuries AD accepted that there had been some
mystery about the birth of Jesus, and they elaborated various schemes. Sometimes
they are complicated. E.g. Nestorians carefully distinguish the human Jesus
from the divine one: when on the Earth the second lived within the first.) At
the end of the first millennium AD the overwhelmingly dominant ecclestical opinion was a witty slogan formulated by a
Greek theologian telling that Mary was virgin before, during, and after the
birth. Up to now, this is the opinion of both the Catholic and the Greek
Orthodox Churches.
Of course, a great
miracle is needed for the triple statement; but the necessary miracle to be Son
of God is hardly less, so we can continue. But, clearly, there is no explicit
confirmation of the second and third parts of the statement in the text of the
Bible.
Accordingly most
Protestants believe that Jesus had brothers & sisters; e.g. James. Indeed,
the Gospels sometimes mention "siblings of the Lord". The Catholic
Church tells that the original formula surely was translated from Aramaic, and
the corresponding Aramaic expression may mean brothers, nephews, cousins
&c. I append this argumentation with the note interesting for any
Indo-European that in the Magyar ("Hungarian") the generic term means
brothers & sisters, although in
specific cases you can single out only brothers or only sisters as well.
(Uralic and Altaic languages do not have genders.)
So: was Mary a virgin
on the day after the wedding with Joseph? One would think that all Christians
should accept this (Catholics according to tradition, Protestants as Sola Scriptura),
still it seems that Unitarians do not
accept it. And they are Protestants, at least according to the Torda Parliament decision in 1568. (They are a substantial
religion in Transylvania, they gave two rulers to the land, John Sigismund in the middle of XVIth
century and and Moses at the beginning of the XVIIth.) I must confess that for me it seems as if the written texts in themselves stated the virginity at
least until the birth; but I am not a theologian.
All non-Unitarian
Protestants agree with Catholics (and Greek Orthodoxes
&c.) in the virginity of Mary until the birth; of course Catholics do this
according both to the Scripture and to the Tradition, while
non-Unitarian Protestants believe this according to Sola
Scriptura, based on which Unitarians do not believe that. No Protestant seems to
believe in the virginity after the
birth; I think they believe that they do (not) this according to Sola Sriptura; but surely, the
Scripture do not state the lack of
virginity afterwards. I think this discussion demonstrates that in religious
matters everybody uses some tradition, but Catholics know that they use extra-Scripture information too, while
Protestants generally believe that they do not. Now, for taking the Scripture literally, the Catholic Church traditionally
emphasizes not to take everything
literally. Obviously, the literal reading (which is ambiguous, as has been
demonstrated on the above example) could contradict Tradition.
For the present topic,
the critical part is the Revelations. A rather disturbing text if you take it literally. Lots of apocalyptic
scenarios are in it: an angel pouring liquid into the Euphrates which then
dries up (so the Persians can cross; an idea which may have terrified Apostle
Paul, alias Saulus of Tharsus,
full-right Roman citizen. Horsemen of Death, Plague, &c.
And the Antichrist, working Chaos. OK, at the end
Christ comes again, subdues the Antichrist. The Jews in
OK, this is the final hope for all believers. But just
before the advent of 1000 AD there were hysterical scenarios in
Instead Pope Sylvester
took a highly nontrivial approach by telling that you should not take Revelations literally. This approach then
turned out not simply correct but also successful. Christ did not close down
the terrestrial history of Humanity either in 1000, or in 1001, or in the next
generation. Revelations did not go to
fulfilment literally. Then what?
Maybe the story will happen
essentially as in Revelations, only the "thousand years" cannot be
read literally. In the next millennium witty people suggested some probable
dates. I understand 1666 as 1000+666, the latter being the Number of the Beast,
and I do not understand the 1844 of the Millerites;
but afterwards they found some error of calculation anyway. Then as 2000 AD
came closer and closer the "double millennium" became a more and more
popular candidate. We can remember the suicide act of the sect believing that
they "go to Heaven" with (on?) Comet Haley-Bopp,
but I think Revelations were somehow behind the Y2K hystery
as well. I myself could not be able to read 2000 years instead of 1000 from
Revelations; but anyways, that prediction is now obsolete.
However there is
another scenario, as close to Sola Scriptura as it is possible after 1030 AD. If we assume that the "thousand years" did not exactly mean
1000 (why?), but the scenario is as literal as possible, and the Malachy Prophecy is true, then the Age of the Antichrist starts about 2010 AD!
Now, I am a physicist.
But here not my belief is important:
in the recent days (and for the next 4 years) the important factor is the
belief of coherent groups of
Summarizing the
Literal Revelations + Simplest Malachy Prophecy
scenario (details in the subsequent Chapters) the present Pope is the penultime one; and he is an octagerian.
The Antichrist starts during his successor.
First one would think
that the only consequence is a somewhat higher political/military instability
because of hystery. (OK, good people should in
principle prefer Final Judgement Now. But remember, they did not like too much
it in 999 AD.) But for religious Sola Scriptura people the prediction suggests definite activity
in Holy Land politics.
Namely, imagine Sola Scriptura people who are
relatively sure that in a Final Judgement Now they would go to Heaven. (I think
many Evangelically Reborn are such people even if I
cannot see the details from Eastern Central Europe clearly.) Now, remember:
Revelations tell that the Jews in
But then: if there
were serious troubles on the Holy Land, then there would not be Jews in
Jerusalem anymore (emigration & such...). But Revelations tell that they
will convert there. So: if the troubles will not be prevented, Christ cannot
come to Finally Judge in the near future; and then the Case of Salvation
suffers serious delay in the best case. So the best option of a serious Sola Scriptura sinless
In 2000 some commentaries
interpreted the Bush victory as result of block voting from Evangelically
Reborn voters. This explanation was repeated in 2004, when the victory was
bigger. Then I think, it is proper to analyse the Malachy Prophecy just before the present voting in
But the Malachy Prophecy is not interesting for a physicist as a
way to predict the result of the elections. I shall be able to interpret any result on November 5. The only
interesting question is a double one:
1) Could Bishop Malachy predict what he predicted in any way?
2) And if not, then
why is the surprising success of the predictions up to now?
3.
ON THE MALACHY PROPHECY
Although practically
everything is uncertain about Middle Age manuscripts, there is a more or less
self-consistent story behind the Malachy Prophecy. In
this Chapter I summarize the story with a single references, which is [4]. (The literature is
big enough.)
In
1139 Maelmhaedhoc O'Morgair,
Bishop of Connor visited
According to the
biographer, the Bishop of Connor saw visions and had the gift of prophecies.
This is not too surprising because you can see from the names that he was
Irish. Mountain Scots, Welsh and Irish often speak about their "second
sight", and Lowland Scots and Englishmen often accept their claims. Now,
the Bishop of Connor wrote a list and gave it to the Pope. Pope Innocent II
placed the manuscript into the archive. (Note that this special story is not mentioned by Bernard of Clairvaux, but, as we saw, generally some visions are.)
There is no evidence that anybody would have read the manuscript until cca. 1550; but there is no either for the
opposite, of course.
Then the text was
found by historian Onoviro Panvinio
and in 1559 the manuscript was published as part of the book Lignum Vitre, of the Benedictine historian Arnold Wion. The structure of the prophecy is simple enough: no
names, no data, but one sentence, a motto, for each consecutive Popes: 111
sentences. Then a short closing comment about another Pope
and Final Judgement. Experts tell, however, that some mottos are
"very true" for some Popes.
So an almost unequivocal
list of Popes can be matched to the mottos. The only problem is that the mottos
indicate at least 2 Antipopes; but some rather well matching mottos fix most
uncertainties. And so the sequence of 111 Popes seem to end with Benedict XVI!
I am going to give
some examples for demonstration. But first: why Malachy?
Now, Bishop Maelmhaedhoc is mentioned by Bernard of Clairvaux as Malachias; it is Malachy in
England. Even now some Irish has officially both a Gaelic and an Anglicised
name. E.g. in 1959 the Irish President was famous Eamon
de Valera and the Prime Minister was Seán F. Lemass. However the
Minister of Exterior was Frank Aiken for English speakers, but Proinsias Mac Aogáin otherwise.
While half of the complications about the name Maelmhaedhoc
comes only from Irish orthography, still Malachias was simpler for a Frenchman.
Now some hits. The Malachy List starts with a Pope "Ex castro Tyberis",
so cca. "From a castle on R. Tiberis". Now this Pope should be Celestine II (1143-1144), because he was
the first successor of Innocent II; and look: Celestine II was born in Citta di Castello,
along Tiberis (Tevere).
An excellent hit if you accept the 419 years in the archive.
If you have some doubts, we must look for Popes after 1559. Then look:
Urban VIII (1623-1644): Lilium et
Clement IX (1667-1669): Sydus Olorum. That is cca. "star of swans" or "constellation of swans",
and he was living in the Chamber of Swans during the election.
Pius VI (1775-1799): Peregrinus Apostolicus. That means apostolic pilgrim, and indeed this
Pope travelled long for XVIIIth century
Popes and at last he had to leave Rome because the Italian Army of General Buonaparte (for Frankophiles, Napoléon).
Gregory XVI (1831-1846): De Balneis Hetruriae. That seems to be "From the baths of Etrury", and his order was founded by St. Romuald in Balneo, Etrury.
Much more hits are
reported, but you may or may not believe that the hit of Ardent Fire at Pius X
is significant; anyways the Bishop of Connor may have automatically assumed
that a Pope would be ardent believer. Then let us see the last severaal Popes.
Benedict XV (1914-1922): Religio depopulata. That is cca. Extinct religion, or at least "a religion whose population
seriously decreased". This can be explained either with the effects of
World War I, or of the Spanish Flu just after (it had more victims than the
War), or with the loss of Russia for any religion. For more Benedicts
see a later Chapter.
Pius XI (1922-1939): Fides intrepida.
That is Intrepid faith, and commentators tell us that
Pius XI fought hard for faith between the World Wars.
Pius XII (1939-1958): Pastor angelicus,
i.e. Angelic shepherd. Of course, this is an automatic hit for any pope.
John XXIII (1958-1963): Pastor et nauta, so Shepherd and sailor (or mariner, or such). The
usual explanation is that he was the Patriarch of Venice, which is the City of
Paul VI (1963-1978): Flos florum; flower of flowers. The commentators tell that his
arms showed lilies.
John Paul I (1978): De meditate lunae. Now this motto is explained in many ways, not
surprisingly for a Pope ruling only 38 days. The mirror translation would be
"Of the middle of Moon". Now what is that? Commentators seem to agree
that it is somehow the "Half-Moon", and Ref. [4], still in the life
of Paul VI, tried with some big upheavals in the Moslim
World. But now it is told that his rule started at a half moon and ended at the
next.
John Paul II: De labore Solis. This motto
is ambiguous. It can be mirror-translated as "From the work of Sun",
but what is that? By some poetic allusion it is interpreted as "from a
solar eclipse", and some commentators tell that he was born during an
eclipse; I must still check this for Wadowice. Others
tell that he was the Pope during the famous 1999 solar eclipse (mentioned
already by Nostradamus); that is true, but that
eclipse was not total either in Wadowice or in Rome.
Again, "he came from East", as the Sun. Finally, Virgin Mary is the
Woman Clothed into Sun, and Polish John Paul II was the Pope most devoted to
Mary in the last half-millennium.
For Benedict XVI (2005-?), Gloria olivae, see later.
And then there is a
closing remark. I give an approximative English
translation, because that Pope has no motto at Maelmhaedhoc.
It tells that there will be an extreme persecution of the Church, and then the
Holy See will be occupied by Petrus Romanus (Peter II),
he will feed the "sheep" "in many tribulations", then
"the city of seven hills" will be destroyed, and the formidable Judge
will come. Finis.
The "sheep"
is obviously the "sheep of St. Peter", so the Christians. The City of
Seven Hills cannot be anything else than Rome, and the formidable Judge must be
Christ of the Final Judgement. So this paragraph must describe the End of the
Story, obviously with some Apocalyptic scenarios just
before, maybe an Antichrist persecuting the believers.
Opinions are equivocal
about the chronology of Petrus Romanus
in the Prophecy. Clearly, the simplest is to put this scenario just after the
Pope Gloria olivae, maybe with a moderate interregnum
because of the Antichrist, persecution & such. True, some commentators
observe that this continuity is not
stated. Petrus Romanus
can live in any time after Gloria Olivae. But then:
why just 111 Popes were named by Maelmhaedhoc? They
are even not all Popes from Second Millenium:
Benedict XVI is already from Third Millenium!
4.
ON CAUSALITY
Cause causes
Consequence. This seems to be obvious; but great Aristotle distinguished 4 types
of "causes" and one was later than the Consequence [5]. OK, this is
so because in Greek (also in English or Magyar) the same simple pronoun asks
for Cause and Purpose. (In English: why?)
From Newton upwards we
rigorously distinguish Cause and Consequence. In Classical Mechanics (also in
Optics) Cause always precedes Consequence, although the equations of Mechanics
are symmetric to time reversal. Planetary motions are as calculable forward as
backwards. Still, there is an Arrow of Time, and it shows the real direction of
processes. If you like, this is the belief of physicists of XIXth century. (Thermodynamics is irreversible.)
Then in the years
starting in 1905 Einstein finds an elegant form in which Belief is transcribed
into Rule.
You have an invariant
four-distance, whose infinitesimally small element ds
is calculable as
ds2 = c2dt2 - dx2 - dy2 - dz2 (1)
Now, faster than light (FTL) travels would produce ds2<0. Since acceleration from STL
to FTL would result in lots of infinities (see any textbook of Special
Relativity), it seems that Physics tells that we cannot go above light
velocity. But anything we know in our environment is STL now; so it seems that
Physics imposes the Rule of Local Causality:
ds2 ≥ 0 (2)
where equality holds for light.
This means a lightcone structure in spacetime.
You cannot leave the lightcone, so surely you cannot
turn back in time. Causality is complete; nice.
5.
PROPHECIES
From time immemorial
people believe that Future sometimes betries itself.
You can get glimpses from Future, if you pay enough to a mage; prophets
prophesy even freely. But sometimes even the layman gets dreams and visions.
(Highland Scots much more frequently than Londoners.)
Greeks had organisations
for this. Dodona of Zeus was more reliable than
Delphi of Apollo. (Delphi sometimes was pro-Persian.) But Delphi was better
than the local shrines, and shrines were better than the neighbour. And
Aristotle also dealt with the problem [6]. He is not too definite; he does not
rule out the phenomenon, he tells that some dreams may be signs; but then he
says that the topics now "have been discussed", and stops.
And this was the state
of art throughout Middle Ages. There is something; we
do not know, exactly what, and the ability is unreliable. So
when (if?) Maelmhaedhoc O'Morgair,
Bishop of Connor writes 111 mottos for 111 consecutive Popes onto a pergamen, then Pope Innocent II says "thank you"
and simply puts the pergamen into the archive.
Irishmen are strange, their prophecies seem better than others' ones; but
still...
But
after Newton Causality of physical processes contradicts to prophecies and
other foresights. OK; maybe Spirit is not physical and so It (She? Both
Psyche and Ruach are feminine) can go backwards, even
if hardly. But henceforth Science is against prophecies; Scholarship is not so
definite. And then we arrive at 1905, and as we have seen, backward processes
are forbidden (for physicists, at least).
6.
MATTER GOVERNS GEOMETRY
In
1913 Albert Einstein (born at
In 1913 General
Relativity (verallgemeinerte Relativitätstheorie)
is ready [8]. There is a metric tensor gik(x)
in spacetime. The infinitesimal distance is written
as
ds2 = gikdxidxk (3)
(with automatic summation in all indices
occurring twice, above & below, which is the Einstein convention). If you uses another coordinates, gik
changes in a prescribed way. There is a metric tensor even for an observer in
the whirlpool Maelstrom.
However, clearly
gravitation influences gik. Grossmann is not interested in this last
equation which Einstein finds alone. (Priority to Hilbert is not clear.) Einstein's
Equation is
Gik
= -(8πG/c4) Tik (4)
where Gik
is a definite expression formed from gik, linear in second
derivatives, Tik is the material
energy-momentum tensor, and G is the Cavendish constant. So if you know the
matter distribution, you can calculate the geometry of the spacetime.
However the matter moves just in this geometry, so after you calculated the
geometry, you must calculate the matter distribution for the next moment, and
then again. So it is not easy to get exact solutions for spacetimes.
Still some people find
some spacetimes; this is a profession. And then a
substantial part of them is acausal. So far I found cca. half a dozen acausal solutions of the Einstein Equation.
Acausal
means the following. We require (3), and also (2). (Local
causality.) So there are lightcones. And still
there are Closed Timelike Loops, i.e. you can go into
your Past to go always Forward to Future, inside the lightcone.
(You can go to the East in Western direction because the surface of the sphere
is not simply connected.)
We do not like such
solutions, and generally throw them away after publishing them. However there
are signals that maybe we are too rigorous; and we cannot formulate a clear and strict
mechanism forbidding the formations of such spacetimes.
Anyways, they are solutions of the Gravitational Equations!
So now in all other
disciplines of Physics backward processes in time are ruled out; but in General
Relativity they are not. Not yet? Maybe. We do not
like acausal processes. But still we cannot rule them
out. See the book [9]; and, of course, definitely my contribution in it.
7.
MAELMHAEDHOC ON A CLOSED TIMELINE?
I do not suggest that Maelmhaedhoc
O'Morgair, Bishop of Connor went forward on a Closed
TimeLine, collected the information about future Popes and returned to Pope
Innocent II. I do not like the idea; if he could do it, I should be able to do
too (gik is objective in General
Relativity), and I am unable. However it seems that some cardinals always
believed; and some were not sure.
Indeed, this might
have been behind some hits. A possible scenario behind the hit about Clement
IX, Sydus Olorum is as
follows. In 1667 the conclave cannot agree; then one cardinal tells that: look,
Malachy tells that the next Pope will be Sydus Olorum. Now, this guy has
his bed in the Cella Olorum.
This is a sign!
I do not know the
situation at the conclave in 1667. Maybe Clement IX was a strong candidate;
maybe not. Details belong to historians. But the Malachy
Prophecy was known for the cardinals and many others since 1559.
The above idea was
tried, without success, in 1958. According to rumours, Cardinal Spellman had hired
a bargue, put up some sheep, and made some turns on Tiberis, as pastor et
nauta, but he then was not been elected. Instead
of Spellman Angelo Giuseppe Roncalli, Patriarch of
Gloria olivae is Benedict XVI. And he is the last-but-one name on
the Malachy list.
Well, as for the
selection of the throne name, there are alternatives. Maybe Benedict XVI does
not take the Malachy list seriously. I would not be
surprised. Or maybe he tells to himself: OK, I am Gloria olivae,
but there will be an indefinitely long gap between me and Petrus
Romanus, the last Pope of the time of catastrophes
and Final Judgement. Or even: OK, I am the penultimate Pope; after me catastrophes,
but comes Christ soon and Judges. I do not know what
he believes. But surely he knows the Malachy
Prophecy, and knows that others know too. And the Name!
8.
BENEDICTS
I do not know why
Joseph Ratzinger from
For example, St.
Benedict organised the first Western order of monks. Previously there were
hermits in
Other commentators
believe that Joseph Ratzinger's idea came as a homage to Benedict XV, the Pope of Religio
depopulata. Benedict XV tried to stop World War I in
1917 with an impartial and honest peace; but Entente and the Prussians were not
partners, both believing that they will be able to crush the enemy. Charles IV,
King of Hungary (as Emperor of Austria, Charles VII/I) and his wife Zita of Parma were partners, but Austria & Hungary were
not enough; and for this attempt Austria & Hungary were indeed crushed into
pieces in the "peace". Maybe Benedict XVI regards Benedict XV as Pope
of Honest Peaces. Or he may know anything nice about earlier Benedicts; I do not know any specific, but here for the
sake of completeness I list the Benedicts of the Malachy List.
Benedict XI: 1303-1304. Concionator Patareus.
The motto can be read
as "Preacher from Patara; and it is told that he
was born in Patara and belonged to some order of
preachers. Later he became the Master General of the Dominicans, but I do not
know anything of his excellence.
Benedict XII: 1334-1342. Frigidus Abbas.
The motto is cca. "the cold abbot". Onoviro Panvinio, historian of
the Vatican Library under Paul IV and some successors (d. 1568) mentions the
name of the abbey as "monasterium Fontis Frigidi" [4], and
then the motto is clear. However the rule of Benedict XII does not seem too
successful or excellent.
Benedict Antipope: 1394-1423. Luna
Cosmedina.
He was a famous
antipope; namely he valiantly fought for a lost and heretic cause; of
Benedict XIII: 1724-1730.
Miles in
He fought for
discipline and against luxury; and some commentators explain the motto with
this fight. Maybe his example is commemorated by Ratzinger?
Benedict XIV: 1740-1758. Animal rurale.
There are some
explanations for the surprising motto, not too interesting for us. The
candidate is recorded to have told that he was not the holiest, neither the
best stateman, but he was the most honest; he was a
compromise. It is difficult to find an easy explanation for his memory
suggesting the name for Ratzinger.
Benedict XV: 1914-1922. Religio depopulata.
See in Chapter 3. I
think he is a good candidate.
And then:
Benedict XVI: 2005-?. Gloria olivae.
Now what is
"Glory of the olive"? There is an explanation suggested in the
minutes after taking the name (Benedict XVI neither denied nor confirmed it)
going as follows. Some Benedictines long since believed that the Pope Gloria olivae will come from the Benedictine order because one
branch of that order is the Olivetans. Also, it is
told to be that there is a tradition about St. Benedict, namely that he would
have told that "before the end of the world" a Benedictine Pope would
lead the Church against Evil. Now this is practically the same as the end of
the Malachy Prophecy.
Now imagine the
situation when Joseph Ratzinger (for hislaic opponents: the Pfanzerkardinal,
a quite strange and unimaginative nickname) is choosing his pontificial
name. If he chooses John Paul III, Pius XIII, or even Lucius IV, no problem. While still he is the Gloria olivae of the Malachy List, Lucius IV does not suggest him considering himself the penultime
Pope, just before Petrus Romanus,
severe tribulations and devastation of
9. CONCLUSION
1: HOW DO THE EVANGELICALLY REBORN AMERICANS VOTE?
I am finishing the text on
By simple logic, there
is a group of voters consisting of individuals who
1)
take Revelations very seriously and more or less
literally;
2)
believe in the Malachy
Prophecy; and
3)
want to go directly
to
I do not know how big is this group, but the
Now, Malachy predicts Gloria olivae the penultimate Pope and by many commentators he is
the present Pope, above 80. Under the final Pope start the Troubles. According
to Revelations these Troubles are caused by the Antichrist; then Christ comes
soon and the Jews of Jerusalem convert. So comes Final Judgement, and the Good
Guys go directly to
So, by formal logics, Christ cannot come if there are no Jews in
However, this point may be less important for them now.
Namely, as the Final Judgement comes nearer and nearer (according to their calculation), it is more and more
probable (for them) that for the remaining short time the Israeli
army can maintain the order in Jerusalem.
For Catholics Revelations is not something to be taken
literally since 999 AD…
10.
CONCLUSION 2: ON CAUSALITY
For anybody interested
in General Relativity the situation is really interesting.
We simply sit and observe. If in the next few
years the Antichrist appears, or somebody starts to persecute Roman Catholics,
or Rome starts to be destroyed, then Maelmhaedhoc
really saw Future; either on a Closed TimeLine, but we do not feel such acausal metrics in our neighbourhood, or by violating even
Local Causality (2). I do not give serious probability to this; but we will
see.
Anyway, this project
is free of cost. You simply read some newspapers sometimes; chances are great
that the observation will not result in anything, but there is a small chance
that you can get evidences for Acausality. Only: what
is the profit just before Final Judgement? Of course you can still publish; but
immediately after...
11. CONCLUSION 3: AND IF
NOT…?
It is much more probable that in the next few
years we shall not see signs for the Antichrist. Then there is an alternative,
and it is hard to decide between the two horns: either there is an indefinite
gap between Gloria olivae and Petrus
Romanus, or the Malachy
Prophecy is wrong.
With a great gap between Gloria olivae and Petrus Romanus the “theory” practically ceases to be a theory. In
addition, then the Malachy Prophecy will not interest
anybody religious anymore. A prophecy prophesying mottos of 111 Popes is interesting
for mathematical statistics, but not for anything else.
However, my question in this series is: if not, then why? If there are no Closed TimeLines
in our neighbourhood (which is not sure but is probable) and the spacetime has 4 dimensions with
(+---) signature (see my paper in [9], starting at p. 277) and anything must obey lightcones, then indeed the success of the Malachy Document is rather surprising. The number of hits
seems much higher than for random guesses.
I told that up to now we cannot be sure if
Global Causality holds in General Relativity. However for the sake of
argumentation assume for a moment that in our present problem Causality holds.
Then Maelmhaedhoc O'Morgair,
Bishop of Connor, in 1139 could not see a list of later Popes; and still there
are the surprising hits. If somebody cannot give an explanation sooner or
later, how, then any argumentation
via “scientific methods” loses its force sooner or later. Namely, if impossible
theories can lead to improbable but correct results, then we cannot anymore
choose between “good” and “bad” theories.
In the remaining paragraphs I cannot “solve
the mystery”. However, I list some arguments for caution.
First, there might have been mystifications
about the Malachy Document. Also, it is connected with
“mysteries of Faith” while Physics, Mathematics & such generally avoid such
topics.
The Document existed in only one copy up to
the second half of the XVIth century. In this more
than 400 years it may have been altered. Of course, very careful scientific
investigation of the pergamen, tint &c. can more
or less decide about age, alterations &c., but really careful and really
impartial investigations can help.
The document was finally published in printed
version by Arnold Wiot in the book Lignum Vitre. As you see, I am not
citing that publication. I do not, because I have not read it. If you want to
find the Wiot publication, you can start with [4]. It
is really important to work with the original publication.
As an analogy, the Nostradamus
Prophecy is almost synchronous with the printed version of the Malachy Prophecy; Nostradamus
published it in 1555. A very interesting prophecy was realised a few years
later, and this is the main reason for their publicity. I could formally refer
the Nostradamus book; only, some scholars state that the first edition cannot be found. I do
not know if it is true or not; only: be careful.
However, as time goes by, less and less
falsifications of the Malachy Documents were
possible. As a working hypothesis, here I accept that the text is unchanged
from 1559.
Then we can see that Sydus
Olorum type effects, when the Prophecy itself was the
Cause of its Fulfilment in a causally orthodox way were possible; but we do not
yet know in how many cases. Historians could find this out: they can know the heraldics, birthplaces &c. of the Cardinals. OK; if we
neglect all cases when a Sydus Olorum
effect acted, still the number of hits seems much higher than for a random
list; but how much higher?
Impartial historians (but how to select them?)
could check the details of the excellent
hits. E.g. Benedict
XI: 1303-1304, Concionator Patareus
is an excellent hit if and only if he
was born indeed in Patara. Similarly Benedict XII:
1334-1342. Frigidus Abbas
is a hit if and only if Onoviro Panvinio is correct that his
abbey was the "monasterium Fontis
Frigidi".
OK, the uncertainty is surely less with Gregory
XVI (1831-1846): De Balneis Hetruriae.
The statement is that his order was founded by St. Romuald
in Balneo, Etrury; simple
enough to verify. Only, we cannot quantify how
probable was this hit. It would have been an even more excellent hit if he himself had been born in Balneo, Etrury; it would have
been still a hit if his family could have traced back to Etrury
500 years ago; and so on. It seems as if
there were something here; but I
cannot quantify in the rigorous sense of Mathematical Statistics.
And I am sure that hits are at least rarer
than commentators like to state. Let us state all Popes since 1922: Fides intrepida, Pastor angelicus,
Pastor et Nauta, Flos florum, De meditate lunae, De labore solis & Gloria olivae. We read and heard lots about these Popes. However
if a con man were to create a list of future Popes, he surely would try with
Fides intrepida, Pastor angelicus and Flos florum. At least the “nauta” in
Pastor et nauta is something
not following automatically from being a Pope. As for De meditate lunae and De labore solis we still do not really understood the mottos. And Gloria olivae?
Anyway, experts of Mathematical Statistics could
and should start with such a project. I am sure, the
project would not have any religious importance. Namely, if Christ comes according to Revelations and the Malachy Prophecy, then He arrives
before the project ends (see the previous Chapter). However if not, then we
shall have better methods to decide if a theoy is
good or not.
REFERENCES
[1] Van der Quine
O. W.: Methods of Logic. Holt,
[2] Lukács B., Martinás K. & Bérczi Sz.:
Symmetry and Katachi in the Works of Aristotle. Forma
15, 173 (2000)
[3]
[4] Bander P.: The Prophecies of St. Malachy. TAN Books, 1969
[5] Aristotle of Stageira: The Complete
Works of Aristotle, ed. J. Barnes.
[6] Aristotle of Stageira: The Complete
Works of Aristotle, ed. J. Barnes.
[7] Trbuhovic'-Djuric' Desanka: U senci Alberta Ajnstajna. Bagdala, Krushevac, 1969
[8] Einstein A. & Grossmann M.: Entwurf
einer verallgemeinerten Relativitätstheorie und einer Theorie der Gravitation. Z. Math.
Phys. 62, 225 (1913)
[9] Buccheri R., Saniga
M. & Stuckey W. M. (eds.): The Nature of Time: Geometry, Physics and
Perception. NATO Science Series Vol. 95, Kluwer
Academic, Dordrercht, 2002
[10]