BeyondET
-
Posts
2,989 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by BeyondET
-
-
21 minutes ago, dad2 said:
I comprehend what is actually known and when people make godless stuff up. That'll do.
And time changes a bit further out is a God fact?,
-
35 minutes ago, dad2 said:
No. Only in your head not in real life.
Bingo. In other words it is all theory based on beliefs. Not reality.
No they are real stars but it's a really big dipper that you can't comprehend.
No it's reality that is so slow you can't comprehend that either, because it's so vast.
The distance can be measured no belief needed. Barbarian posted the measurements.
-
23 minutes ago, dad2 said:
The shift as it exists here in the fishbowl of the solar system and area. That is what it means here. Not there that we know. As for what is 'moving', that does not tell us how far fast or etc. Whatever light is like currently produced by the sun is irrelevant since that is in the fishbowl here.
Even out of the fishbowl, light spectrum doesn't change.
-
1 hour ago, The Barbarian said:
After hatching and fledging, I presume.
Exactly, they can traverse the world using their wings very little. Though flying mostly in the southern hemisphere. every now and then an albatross sighting will happen north of the equator but it's not many.
-
The wondering albatross is a amazing bird. Lives it's first 6 years never touching land and can sleep in flight by locking its 12 foot wings.
-
38 minutes ago, Dennis1209 said:
Yes, your view is plausible, and I would not debate against it but offer another alternative that might better fit. I would propose that the ice age and polar caps resulted from Noah's flood, much later than scientific speculation, and not millions and millions of years of evolution. The accumulation and depth of polar ice takes decades, not centuries or millennia. Source
The ice age began with a sudden flash of freezing. There is a perfect ice-free terrain map (Piri Reis 1513 Map) of Antarctica. It was impossible to map accurately during the Dark Ages. Only now, through technology, can we partially map it. Many woolly mammoths have been found flash frozen, flesh and D.N.A. intact, with food still in their mouths.
The Book of Job mentions more snow, ice, and cold than any other book in the Bible. According to some scholars, the Book of Job may have preceded the writings of Moses.
Ancient tradition places Job's home in Hauran, to the east of the Sea of Galilee; and some Bible maps shade in the land of Uz large enough to take in both theories, but the weight leans to a location near Edom to the southeast of Damascus (cf. Jer 25:20; Lam 4:21). That is pretty far South.
Job 38:29-30 Out of whose womb came the ice? and the hoary frost of heaven, who hath gendered it? 30 The waters are hid as with a stone, and the face of the deep is frozen.
One gets the picture of Job witnessing the melting and retreat of the glaciers.
In addition, when we consider land bridges and migration, what about mammals, serpents, and insects? Take Australia for one example. They have warm and cold-blooded animals and insects found nowhere else. Did they all migrate by land bridge to one place?
Genesis 10:25 And unto Eber were born two sons: the name of one was Peleg; for in his days was the earth divided; and his brother's name was Joktan.
Genesis 10:5 By these were the isles of the Gentiles divided in their lands; every one after his tongue, after their families, in their nations.
PELEG (Pēʹ lĕg) Personal name meaning “division” or “watercourse.” Descendant of Shem (Gen. 10:25), ancestor of Abraham (Gen. 11:16–19; 1 Chron. 1:19, 25) and Jesus (Luke 3:35). Peleg’s name is attributed to one of the many firsts recorded in Genesis, the “division” of the earth or land.1 1 Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary
Something drastic transpired about 1,800 years after the six-day creation account. In the days of Nimrod, languages were divided. Dispersions and migrations took place according to their new tongues under Nimrod, the way I understand it. What was divided in the days of Peleg? The root of Peleg has something to do with water—many thoughts on all of this.
The north pole has animals that only live in extreme temperatures at the polar cap. The south pole doesn't have any native animals just migrating birds and ocean dwellers.
Polar bears are designed for cold climate they can't survive anywhere else.
-
4 hours ago, The Barbarian said:
It's very difficult to do this, but it has been done for nearby stars by parallax:
The proper motion of Barnard's Star corresponds to a relative lateral speed of 90 km/s. The 10.3 arcseconds it travels in a year amount to a quarter of a degree in a human lifetime, roughly half the angular diameter of the full Moon.I suppose as well a person could take a photo at 10 years old and another at age 80 and compare the two photos to see the half of the moon diameter that the star moved. Observing and remembering each day from the first location then the latter over a human lifetime would be quite difficult imo. Could record the coordinates in a notebook maybe.
It's fascinating the vehicle is moving at 1.3 million mph through space. With a average spin rate of 514,000 mph. The center is around 738,000 mph.
-
8 hours ago, dad2 said:
How long have we watched and saw stars actually move? The indirect methods used involve belief.
The milky way galactic spin rate is very very slow. A galactic year observed on earth takes around 240 million years. No human will ever see a star move in the milky way. There's a couple of visible stars that aren't part of the milky way like Andromeda galaxy and afew others but they are so far away you won't see them move either. Planets that look like stars of course.
The big dipper and other gathering of stars like constellations are all just optical illusions because on earth the view is condensed distorted. Those stars are way father away from each other than it appears.
-
16 minutes ago, dad2 said:
Or maybe because time itself changes and affects light. You are assuming that because light is redshifted a certain way on earth, that this must be the cause of all shifts in the universe. Who says it is 'because' of vast distance alone in the far universe? Proof?
It's color shift in the light spectrum. That is what redshift means. Everything in the universe is moving in one direction or another. The solar system resides in a galaxy that is moving. Everything shifts but not all stars are viewed in the red spectrum only. If they are it's very far away. Light from the sun produces a visible full color spectrum array because it's close.
-
7 hours ago, dad2 said:
Yet stars moving away from us is determined largely by redshift. Unless the reasons light shifted out there were what they assumed (the way it works on earth) then all bets are off. How long have we watched and saw stars actually move? The indirect methods used involve belief.
Moving away or towards doesn't matter, redshift is simply the light waves are so stretch out because of the vast distance between the observer that the visible color is shifted towards mostly red. The waves haven't change direction just the visible color because its so far away.
It's a visual thing just like sound is to the ear, an example is a sonic boom. When something breaks the sound barrier that's all you hear is a boom.
-
9 hours ago, CaptWalker said:
I recently heard another TV pastor/preacher,etc using this phrase, basically in discussing those who would come after he was gone. Umm, well I was just wondering exactly WHY even some very educated(???) Bible teachers/scholars are still apparently under the impression that there will be even one more generation to come...??? While MANY others are contemplating how many years/DAYS we have left before Christs return...am I missing something here???
But then again if I had a LOT of $$$ that I wanted to pass on to my children and the time I had left here was short, I might just even hope that anything I left behind would be lasting, but for generations...?? But then again I would never be in such a state of mind or position in life where I would ever think anything other than the time now is very SHORT ...just saying.
Imagine how Christians felt during WW2, probably no doubt they thought the time was near. Here we are generations later.
What makes you think time now is short?
-
2 hours ago, dad2 said:
Since the new observations differ greatly from what a big bang model demands, the obvious question would be why not consider that the big bang model is a crock?
Additionally, why not look at the reasons they imagine that stars are flying away from us quickly ('expansion') The interpretation of what redshift is and what causes it is the primary reason if I am not mistaken. Any changing nature of time itself and/or space/timespace as we progress further out in the universe could affect light and make it appear shifted as well. In other words we might consider that distant redshifting is more a feature of time rather than movement.
The observations are about voids in the universe its not about the beginning.
Some stars are moving away from us and some are moving towards the milky way, Andromeda is a example.
-
The universe is complicated and new things are being discovered all the time like the KBC void. It appears the universe isn't so uniformed.
https://www.businessinsider.com/we-live-inside-cosmic-void-breaks-cosmology-laws-2024-5
-
1
-
-
Job 22:14
Thick clouds veil Him so He does not see us as He traverses the vault of heaven.’
-
1
-
-
On 4/14/2024 at 5:38 AM, FreeGrace said:
The Bible doesn't locate the heavens. Seems to be a reference to the universe.
I'm all about the earth because that's the focus in Genesis 1.
The universe is where darkness and light resides.
-
2 minutes ago, NConly said:
yes I have heard of the deep darkness. However deep water or deep darkness does not imply that ice is deep imo
The word deep can apply to a lot of things really, like deep thinking 🤔
-
1 hour ago, FreeGrace said:
Sure there could be. Why do you disagree? Ice is solid and melting water is liquid so each CAN have a face.
So, please explain what "face" refers to twice.
The Bible SAYS the Spirit was hovering over the face of the waters. Deal with it.
No speculation whatsoever.
New International Version
Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
New Living Translation
The earth was formless and empty, and darkness covered the deep waters. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the surface of the waters.
English Standard Version
The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.
Berean Standard Bible
Now the earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the surface of the waters.
King James Bible
And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
New King James Version
The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.
New American Standard Bible
And the earth was a formless and desolate emptiness, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the surface of the waters.
NASB 1995
The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters.
NASB 1977
And the earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep; and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters.Legacy Standard Bible
And the earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the surface of the waters.
Amplified Bible
The earth was formless and void or a waste and emptiness, and darkness was upon the face of the deep [primeval ocean that covered the unformed earth]. The Spirit of God was moving (hovering, brooding) over the face of the waters.
Christian Standard Bible
Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness covered the surface of the watery depths, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the surface of the waters.
Holman Christian Standard Bible
Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness covered the surface of the watery depths, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the surface of the waters.
American Standard Version
And the earth was waste and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep: and the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
Aramaic Bible in Plain English
The Earth was chaos and empty and darkness on the faces of the depths and the Spirit of God hovered on the faces of the waters.
Brenton Septuagint Translation
But the earth was unsightly and unfurnished, and darkness was over the deep, and the Spirit of God moved over the water.
Contemporary English Version
The earth was barren, with no form of life; it was under a roaring ocean covered with darkness. But the Spirit of God was moving over the water.
Douay-Rheims Bible
And the earth was void and empty, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the spirit of God moved over the waters.
English Revised Version
And the earth was waste and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep: and the spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
GOD'S WORD® Translation
The earth was formless and empty, and darkness covered the deep water. The Spirit of God was hovering over the water.
Good News Translation
the earth was formless and desolate. The raging ocean that covered everything was engulfed in total darkness, and the Spirit of God was moving over the water.
International Standard Version
When the earth was as yet unformed and desolate, with the surface of the ocean depths shrouded in darkness, and while the Spirit of God was hovering over the surface of the waters,
JPS Tanakh 1917
Now the earth was unformed and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the spirit of God hovered over the face of the waters.
Literal Standard Version
and the earth was formless and void, and darkness [was] on the face of the deep, and the Spirit of God [was] fluttering on the face of the waters,
Majority Standard Bible
Now the earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the surface of the waters.
New American Bible
and the earth was without form or shape, with darkness over the abyss and a mighty wind sweeping over the waters—
NET Bible
Now the earth was without shape and empty, and darkness was over the surface of the watery deep, but the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the water.
New Revised Standard Version
the earth was a formless void and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters.
New Heart English Bible
Now the earth was formless and empty, and darkness was on the surface of the watery depths. And God's Spirit was hovering over the surface of the waters.
Webster's Bible Translation
And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep: and the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
World English Bible
The earth was formless and empty. Darkness was on the surface of the deep and God’s Spirit was hovering over the surface of the waters.
Young's Literal Translation
the earth hath existed waste and void, and darkness is on the face of the deep, and the Spirit of God fluttering on the face of the waters,
See for yourself.
The heavens was in the beginning too and before earth. It's mentioned first, darkness was on the face of the deep. There's no let there be light amidst the waters.
Where's the heavens in the beginning. Your all about the earth in the beginning what about the heavens?
-
2 hours ago, NConly said:
I always heard water described as deep. I have never heard ice being described as deep. Seems there was no ice.
You ever heard of the deep darkness of space?.
-
On 4/12/2024 at 7:40 AM, FreeGrace said:
Think of a deep ice pack. Where would the "face" be located? at the surface. Now think of melting waters. Where would the "face" be located? at the surface.
Please answer my question. About the Holy Spirit hovering over the face of the waters.
I don't mean like cousins. Where are the light located? In the expanse.
What a question. It is the melting waters that are deep. Just like the ice pack.
Irrelevant. I'm talking Gen 1:2. Where are you?
Your point?
There wouldn't be two faces one of the ice pack and another of the waters melting.
To say God was hovering thus melting the ice pack is pure speculation.
-
1
-
-
7 hours ago, FreeGrace said:
What I read is "face of the deep" and "face of the waters". All in one verse. Why wouldn't they be related; the deep and the waters. Seems kinda obvious to me.
What do you think is meant by the Holy Spirit hovering over the face of the waters?
ps: of course there is a "face" to melting waters. Water that is melting does have a 'face'. It's the surface of the puddle, pond, lake, sea or ocean.
Just because it's in the same verse doesn't they are the same. The lights and the expanse is in one verse doesn't mean they are related.
how can deep melt? Water can be in three states yet its water nonetheless rather solid liquid or gas.
It mentions darkness and that's where light was separated.
-
4 hours ago, FreeGrace said:
A very thick ice pack would be very "deep". The "waters" would indicate melting the ice pack from the Holy Spirit hovering over the pack.
Scripture would only mentioned the face of the deep, if that's the case. Ice melting doesn't have a face it's just melting.
-
17 hours ago, IgnatioDeLoyola said:
Dear @dad2,
I do genuinely understand this argument but, as a qualified physicist, I am obliged to tell you that it is misinformed, and undercuts many other solid apologetic arguments for God's existence and precise design of the universe.
The reason for my disagreement with you has to do with how fundamental the laws governing radioactivity are to the nature and consistency of matter and the universe.
Most people, unless they have studied physics, don't understand just how fundamental radioactivity is to the formation and nature of matter. Let me try to explain.
What is a nucleus?
Every atom has a "nucleus". This is a very small ball of positively charged protons, and neutral neutrons, that form the core of an atom, and determine its fundamental qualities such as weight, size, chemical element, nature (metal, gas, etc.).
The nucleus is a fine balance of different forces - some attractive, and some repulsive. For example, protons (being positive) repel each other through the "electromagnetic force". Protons and neutrons attract each other through the "strong force". In total, there are 6 types of "forces" (or 5 if you exclude gravity, which only applies to very very large nuclei, like neutron stars) which effect the energetic balance of nuclei.
Why do some Nuclei decay?
If a nucleus is too energetic, it cannot exist because it would instantly split apart. Indeed, there are many, many possible universes where nuclei cannot exist, because the balance of fundamental forces has to be "just right" for any matter to exist at all. You may have heard of "fine tuning" arguments for God's existence - this is one of them.
Now, some nuclei exist on the "border" of being stable and unstable. That is, they are quite energetic, but not energetic enough to split immediately and therefore not exist. We call these nuclei radioactive - and exactly how radioactive they are depends on how much energy they have within them, depending on the balance of these fundamental forces. This balance determines how often these nuclei decay, and this determines their half life.
As you have noted in your post, if you change some fundamental constants (or if they were different in the past), then you can change the half-life of these elements. BUT - this creates a LOT more problems / questions than it answers, because of how fundamental these forces are to nature.
Here are some of the questions / issues changes in these fundamental constants creates:
If nuclei were more unstable in the past, elements that are currently stable would have been unstable back then.
To make radioactive decay faster in the past, you need to alter some of the fundamental balance and constants of forces in nature. The result will necessarily make ALL nuclei more unstable. In-so-doing, you widen the number and scope of nuclei that are unstable, creating huge amounts more radioactivity.
Why would God do this? How would he prevent this extra radioactivity damaging humans, and other life on earth?
Indeed, if nuclei were more unstable in the past, some radioactive elements couldn't have existed at all, obliterating many of the decay-chains we find in rocks today. From the evidence we have today, this clearly didn't happen.
Radioactivity produces heat. Making every nucleus way more unstable would destroy the earth and everything in it.
Most folks don't know this, but the earth's core is kept molten through radioactive decay, and the heat released by it. By definition, ALL decay causes energy to be released from nuclei - because radioactive decay is the process by which nuclei become less energetic, and thus more stable.
This is why nuclear power stations work - they stimulate decay to become faster in a chain reaction - and this creates heat which drives turbines. It is also how nuclear fission (uranium / plutonium) bombs work - through the instant, or near instant, release of nuclear decay energy.
If radioactive decay had been much faster and more widespread in the past, not only would the rocks and minerals it occurs in have melted and reset their radiometric dates, but in fact the earth would have melted and at least partially vapourised. Such is the level of energy released by radioactivity. Clearly this did not happen at any time from the Genesis narrative onwards.
There is no alteration of constants / forces that would make radioactivity accelerate by the same amount in different radioactive elements.
For your hypothesis to hold true, there must be a constant or set of constants that you can alter that accelerates radioactive decay by the same rate / ratio in all radioactive substances. Otherwise, you wouldn't have different methods of radiometric dating agreeing on ages so often in the same rock.
In other words, decay would have to become exactly 4 billion times faster in Rubidium-87, Uranium-235, Uranium-238, Potassium-40, etc, etc all at the same time.
But these elements have very, very different nuclei, that will be effected differently by changing certain fundamental forces. There is no constant, or set of constants, that you can change to make these nuclei's decay rates rise by the exact same ratio or multiplier.
Therefore any proposed change would make radiometric dates differ radically depending on what dating method you used. This would be immediately apparent in almost all radiometric dating results, except those tiny tiny few that just so happened to agree by accident / coincidence.
If the Universe is "fine tuned" for creation to exist, why would God mess with this fine-tuning post-hoc ex-facto?.
I think this question speaks for itself - but to drive home the point, if God created the universe perfectly so that life could exist, why would he make matter fundamentally more stable after the fall of man, or after the flood?
Wasn't the universe and everything in it created perfectly by God in the first place? Why would God make the universe's matter more unstable, then wait for man to sin, then make all matter more stable?
While this is a theological rather than scientific argument, it still presents a considerable obstacle to accepting your narrative.
Summary
Sorry this was such a long and technical post @dad2. But I'm sure you can see why it had to be. In short, your hypothetical scenario is based on ignorance of the underlying physics behind radioactivity. It doesn't make sense or hold up to any form of logical scrutiny.
More than that, it doesn't produce the world we observe today (and thus cannot explain it), nor can it possibly fit in with the narrative we find in the book of Genesis. And, it opens up the possibility that God created the world in some way "wrongly" to begin with, and had to tune fundamental physics as a result, which is obviously not the case.
Sorry if that conclusion is blunt. I know you didn't mean badly or harmfully in your original post.
Best
I
I wonder what new info on radiation decay if any in dark matter or maybe something else happening in non-baryonic matter. It can be detectable by the gravitational influences it has in the universe yet eludes direct detection.
-
20 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:
2 Timothy 4:3 "For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears." The fool searches for answers with the creation. The wise man searches for answers with the Creator.
So there is more understanding of Genesis?, because the wise man searches for the answers with the creator.
-
On 4/5/2024 at 1:39 PM, FreeGrace said:
Interesting question! The plural of 'water' in v.2, in the Hebrew, refers to melting water.
v.2 - The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.
Red words would explain a deep ice cover over the earth, resulting in the darkness. The word "hovering" is:
NAS Exhaustive ConcordanceWord Origin
a prim. root
Definition
to hover
NASB Translation
hovers (1), moving (1).Some Hebrew scholars say this is describing the process by which birds hatch their eggs, through warmth. So the Spirit of God was melting the ice pack, to prepare for the restoration.
The word "tohu" occurs 10 times in the OT, 3 times with "wabohu". The following words are how "tohu" was translated elsewhere in the OT:
chaos, desolation, futile, waste place (3), confusion, formless (2). But Jer 4:23 cannot be ‘formless’ since it describes the total destruction of land by a besieging army that destroys nations (from context). So should be 4 x for “wasteland/place”. None of these words can be applied to original perfect creation of the earth. ALL of these translations describe very negative conditions.
And all objects HAVE form. No object lacks form. That was a terrible translation.
There's two faces mentioned in v2, they are not one in the same. One is the deep and the other is the waters.
Man was in Pangaea
in Science and Faith
Posted · Edited by BeyondET
The object that produces the light spectrum that shines on earth is where?