Starship Asterisk*

Beyond the stars (and Galaxies of course) there is water which shall soon be detected. Genesis 1:6 - "and God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters." Reading on a few verses we see that in the firmament are sun, moon, stars .. below the firmament are the waters of the earth with dry land appearing. The new telescopes should show the proof.

More importantly, what is beyond the expanding universe??

What is beyond the expanding, contracting, or stable universe depends on whether you consider the water which will be discovered beyond the stars and galaxies outside the universe or inside it.

Nahhh no water beyong. That's a nonsense. Forget it. Science and religion dont mix. I suggest that you go on a religion forum.

Doum - I suggest you stop telling people were to go .. and go there yourself. I've said my last on this thread.

Sputnick, mate, any idea how much that water would weight? Let's see if you can do the math, suppose we have a thin (let's say just 1mm) hollow sphere of water with radius of 13 billions of light years. How much would that be, compared to our Sun weight?

Makc,
I thought everything in space was weightless??? so long as there isn't a gravity well to act upon it

hey BMA123, you are right the water sphere could rotate around the rest of universe, as such having zero "weight" and hence not falling inside, just like our satellites. my appologies to Sputnick, this seems indeed be viable option.

In fact, if this water sphere evolved into something less evenly distributed, e.g. giant water balls orbiting universe in all directions at slightly different radii, we could explain light red shift by that, or even use red shift to estimate water masses.

p.s. if water balls are big enough, they may be pulling out galaxies, creating big bang illusion; how about that?

Sputnick wrote:Beyond the stars (and Galaxies of course) there is water which shall soon be detected. Genesis 1:6 - "and God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters." Reading on a few verses we see that in the firmament are sun, moon, stars .. below the firmament are the waters of the earth with dry land appearing. The new telescopes should show the proof.

First off, Genesis seems to be describing the geocentric model of the universe. Not at all surprising that the information in the bible is limited to the knowledge and understanding of the period.

Second, I think harry made a fine point; considering the sheer size of the universe and the mass required for that much water, we'd notice the gravitational effects. For instance, galaxies near the edges of the universe would be attracted outward toward this aqua-shell.

If the universe is static as Genesis suggests, gravity would eventually cause all the water, stars, and what not to come crashing together.

But that leads us to other questions, such as where did this water come from, how was it formed? As far as we know, anything more complex than hydrogen was formed at some point by nuclear fusion in stars. So where did the oxygen in all that water come from?

Besides gravitational effects (that much water would account for a large portion of the matter in the universe) why can't we observe it? Light from stars near this "boarder" would reflect off the water at some point and spectral analysis could easily determine its make-up.

But if it was beyond the universe, would it be in 'space' as we know it (a vaccuum)? Is that what is beyond our expanding universe?

Orca wrote:So where did the oxygen in all that water come from?

Oh, that one is easy: God made it. He also used some of it to flood the Earth in Noah times (remember it says, water came from skies).

Orca wrote:why can't we observe it?

Either because of red-shift (maybe microwave background is light coming from that water), or just because it is too far (especially given 6000 years of Universe age).

I do not think absolute zero weight is possible in QM?

makc wrote:

Orca wrote:So where did the oxygen in all that water come from?

Oh, that one is easy: God made it. He also used some of it to flood the Earth in Noah times (remember it says, water came from skies).

Orca wrote:why can't we observe it?

Either because of red-shift (maybe microwave background is light coming from that water), or just because it is too far (especially given 6000 years of Universe age).

Well there you go...that water is at least 6000 light years away; soon "the new telescopes" might finally catch a glimpse of it.

---

makc, you might be wondering why I bothered responding: I figured I would throw out a few casual points to illustrate that when it comes to science, not all points of view are equally valid.

Also, it fascinates me that there are people who hold literal truth from translations of ancient manuscripts despite all evidence to the contrary.

Anyway, I figured the stark contrast would culminate in a statement revolving around what an astoundingly amazing guy god happens to be.

Sputnick wrote:What is beyond the expanding, contracting, or stable universe depends on whether you consider the water which will be discovered beyond the stars and galaxies outside the universe or inside it.

The new telescopes should show the proof.

If the universe was static, gravity would eventually pull everything together - water and all. The universe can't be both static and infinite and still have your "outer shell of water" because there'd be no "outer" to have a shell around. If the universe is finite and expanding (as observation shows us), the water shell would have to grow with it, meaning an ever-increasing amount of water was being added as time went by.

Considering that the water has never been observed, that there is no explanation for how the water could be there in the first place and no mechanism exists to continuously add more, you've got some splainin' to do.


One more thing: what if "the new telescopes" don't find your water? What then? Do we wait for scopes that are bigger still? At what point do you go back to the drawing board?

You see, if you had used scientific method to develop your water-shell theory but found no water, your hypothesis would be found false and you'd have to postulate a new one and begin the process again.

Does your religious faith allow such self-correction?

To add to what orca says, your "evidence" is based on a book that was written (by man, without modern scientific knowledge) long ago (starting 6000 years ago?) Long enough that in most cases the original text no longer exists. Instead we have copies (transcribed by man, many times), translations (again by man), and translations of translations. Add to that, the book was compiled and edited by an institution whose primary concern was preserving itself, so that some texts were discarded or hidden and others had their meaning shaded to suit the purpose of the institution. Excuse me for being skeptical, but the "facts" of the book are at best questionable.

Orca, you are underestimating a power of religious argument. Almost anything you say can be rejected on totally logical basis. That's one of the reason we do not discuss religion here. Cough.

Orca wrote:Well there you go...that water is at least 6000 light years away; soon "the new telescopes" might finally catch a glimpse of it.

As you say yourself, at least. It may very well be billions of l.y. away.

Orca wrote:If the universe was static, gravity would eventually pull everything together - water and all.

Well, the water can be rotating as I said above, or it can be so far that the time it will take it to fall onto the rest of universe is enough for masterplan.

Orca wrote:Considering that the water has never been observed, that there is no explanation for how the water could be there in the first place and no mechanism exists to continuously add more, you've got some splainin' to do.

The explanation is short and simple: God did it. And He works in misterious ways.

Orca wrote:One more thing: what if "the new telescopes" don't find your water? What then? Do we wait for scopes that are bigger still? At what point do you go back to the drawing board?

Never.

The Administrators here are not consistant. It appears the rule-of-forum is subject to bias interpretation.

Martin wrote:Unlock the previous thread or I will never return!

I'm fairly certain your threat is quite impotent. You are, of course, welcome to leave, or stay, as you wish.

Martin, aka Ca, I ain't an administrator here. If you think I deserve a slap or want this thread equally locked, PM Nereid.

I don't see how the stated water having been created on Earth has anything to do with what is in space and beyond. Of course there are elements of oxygen, hydrogen and other chemicals that help in the creation of water molecules, but that doesn't mean a monstrous orb/shell of water is forming around the entire universe. Water usually dissipates in my microwave at home. =/

I don't read that at all in the 'text'. I do read that what is explained in a little more words than the part about the stars being created is the creation of Earth and lands and creatures. Again, still very simple in explanation. So the 'text' being referred to can't really be used as a tool to explain the processes of creation on the levels that we as a human species can understand (in a more professional scientific manner, at the molecular/atomic levels). Its dumbed down to the point that even a child can understand what happened.

Given that, I think the time frame is also 'dumbed down' to the point that humans can measure it more easily within a scale that seemed more 'logical' to that period of time. Who could have imagined 1 billion years was possible 2000 years ago? So a '6000 year-old universe' could just be a smaller scale representing a general timeline of the 'events' chronicled. Not an exact timeframe for the creative processes that occured to make our present day universe as it is.

We all know through simple observations using technology of today that if what appeared even 1000 years ago was constrained within this 6000 year universe, than what was seen by the first telescopes would be so extremely different than what we see today because everything would be changing so fast, given the sheer SIZE and DEPTH of the true expanse that is our universe. These galaxies and constellations and all that is visible and invisible has rarely changed at all. Alignments, orbits, locations of other galaxies relative to our own. Don't overlook these simple observations.

The Universe isn't changing all that fast, but the awareness of our surroundings is.

Example:

Funny how people totally think that dinosaurs didn't exist when we have fossil proof. Did those dinosaurs live for only 30 years before man or something? We have recorded history from hundreds of ancient civilizations that account for much more than our own records of today do, and we even use those records to help piece together a timeline of possible events for this planet. And now modern humans have engineered ways to discover the many layers beneath our feet and what is contained within those layers.

That timeline cannot be constrained within a 6000 year period if you 'believe' that other lifeforms walked this earth long before humans ever did. If we don't acknowledge those simple facts, we are leaving out some important stuff from our musings of the universe.

65 million years ago, Dinosaurs walked the earth. Go visit a museum and touch the proof for yourself (if they let you). Carbon dating would need to be extremely far off and evolution of species and the human race would need to be evolving so fast that who and what things are today would have already changed or evolved beyond what they've been for the last few thousand years. AGAIN, fossil proof shows us that evolution has changed species throughout the timeline of our planet. Not in thousand year increments, but million year increments.

Unless that can be explained away, it does exist because its been found. I will agree with Scientists and Geologists on this one. The age of this planet and all things within this Universe could not have been created within 6000 years. Even as a child going to sunday school I thought this, and even drew pictures of the solar system and planets and a blobby little galaxy and showed my sunday school teacher, and only thing I was told was what I am hearing now. 5000 years is the age. O.o!!!!

I'm not eight years old anymore. I grew up. I know there is no Santa Claus, no Easter Bunny, no Tooth Fairy... no Bono. But I do know that there is scientific proof that the timescale inwhich planets and stars and galaxies are formed is within millions of years, even billions, but not thousands. How do we know this? AGAIN, simple observation of the facts before our eyes. Same facts that have been there for thousands of years that astronomers have been looking, watching, reading, and trying to analyze what is out there. If things were created so fast, why have they seemingly stopped now?

But they haven't stopped, creation is still happening before our very eyes. I see it (or I wish I actually could with my very eyes) as I look up and notice Orion above, with the star forming region below the Belt. Heavenly creation by an unknown force? Or by the forces that govern our universe? I think we are too ignorant to decipher an exact answer. We can only observe what is happening, analyze the data received from our telescopes and filters, and the rate these new stars are forming gives us a pretty good blueprint for what may have happened when the first stars formed, clumping together, forming clusters and galaxies.

Processes are needed for these objects to form, and the rate they are forming is NOT instantly. Our visible galaxy alone would be so filled with stars and light if new stars were formed at such rates that were constrained within a 6000 year period. And then there is the expansion being noticed. 6000 light years away isn't very far, and that's just giving our general location within our galaxy. *refer to the speed of light examples in that other thread showing how lightspeed gives us the proof of the distances we now know* Those distances may not be exact, but 13 billion is a far cry from 6000.

sidenote to self: ask this question to pastor next sunday, "how old is our universe and what do you believe?"

I am interested to know what he thinks, but if he thinks differently than me, I can't fault him for it, nor would I think less, because he's my fellow brother under the same Sun as I, and we both cherish the same 'man' who walked the Earth and died for all. Not to forget, he's only been given a 2000 year old manuscript, a billion times rewritten, to work with. =b

And that mainly deals with the trials of man and the wars we each fight within, and is to be used to govern ourselves, not to govern the rules of the Eternal Expanse above.

Like I've said to my fiance, who also believes in the God but is having a hard time understanding just how big our universe is, "What if there ARE other worlds, other people, other civilizations on these planets that also have their own history and beliefs? Do you think they know of the same things we know of? Are taught the same lessons and believe in the same things as we do, or as we don't? Are they also told of a 'man' who died for all?"

*What happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas* =b

That alone is a serious debate even with someone I truelly love, but people are different and think differently, which is why I love being with her. She helps me see things in a different light, just I can help explain to her things that she knows so little about and was never really brought up on (the true reality that is our universe and all things contained within).

Could our universe be floating within an ocean of universes? Things that make you go hmmm...

your "slowness" argument is only valid without "unknown force" at work, so your pastor friend has all rights to ignore it.

Are they also told of a 'man' who died for all

Remember multidimensional beings? He could as well be just like that, dying once "simultaneously" across the universe for every sentinent race in existence.

G'day

That reminds me of my wife.

Harry, your wife is a multi-dimensional being? Er, that is, more than the "normal 4" dimensions?



By the way, do real Australians drink Foster's? Or do they just sell it to us silly Americans so we can think we're drinking Australian beer?



Did anyone else notice that you see more binary star systems after you've been drinking?

Quote from Orca:

"Did anyone else notice that you see more binary star systems after you've been drinking?"

Yea and at best i see triple star system but then everything collapse into a black hole and then i rejenerate myself. Tho it hurt.

makc wrote:your "slowness" argument is only valid without "unknown force" at work, so your pastor friend has all rights to ignore it.

Are they also told of a 'man' who died for all

Remember multidimensional beings? He could as well be just like that, dying once "simultaneously" across the universe for every sentinent race in existence.

made no sense at all...

if your mind is not open wide enough for it to make sense, use LSD or something. aint gonna explain myself, it's boring.