Starship Asterisk*

Genesis says, 'water above the firmament - water below the firmament - in the firmament stars, moon, sun. In the water below the firmament dry land appeared.' Nothing is said about the water above the firmament.

Job says 'the earth is a sphere suspended on nothing'.

Anyone wanna chat Biblical Astronomy?

While I have no doubt that "Biblical Astronomy" is a fascinating topic of discussion, it is important to keep in mind what this discussion forum is for, and about.

The Rules: read these before posting are pretty clear: "All threads must be questions or comments on astronomy".

One thing this forum most definitely does not permit is religion; it's beyond our scope.

Also, I moved the thread you started (this one) Sputnick, to this part of the board, because it does not relate directly to any APOD.

If there is anything you, or any reader of this post, would like clarified, re the rules, please don't hesitate to send me a message!

Nereid, isn't this topic just fine to stay, as long as we do not discuss if the book of genesis is really word of god? there's probably nothing wrong in discussing what ancient jews (or other nations) knew about universe... after all, we have discusions involving aliens and fsm here and there, and no harm is done.

Sputnick wrote:Nothing is said about the water above the firmament.

Sputnick, I think (or rather have a hunch) that this comes to some common ancient legend, see related discussion in this thread.

http://www.pioneer-net.com/~jessep/my.html

This guy has all the answers

endy, posts like yours will get this thread locked in no time. let's not ruin it, ok?

makc wrote:endy, posts like yours will get this thread locked in no time. let's not ruin it, ok?

Makc (Moderator) - Thanks for your weighing in on the side of enlightenment; but I am confused as to why you object to Jendy's post. I found it thought provoking (if the Big Bang were real then the Centre would still be there and we should be able to see it) .. and it is at least presented as theory, not fact, which most posts in the forum present themselves as .. facts without reference or insight as to why they are presented as facts. John D (bless his soul for he strives both for enlightment and to present enlightment) is a classic example.

Sputnick, I may have mod power (which I have not used for a looooong time), but I am not king of the hill. The king (or better "queen") of the hill is currently Nereid, and it is my guess that page like that endy linked to is somewhat below her garbage threshold. Hence I estimate that, if such links will pop up in this thread, it is doomed to be locked.

Well Makc .. (and I recognize Nereid ((that you)) may be reading this) if that post is considered garbage by ((you)) Nereid it means that she ((you)) is ((are)) not open to speculative science or the opinion of others .. and as a matter of fact the anti-gravity speculation fits in rather nicely to the Pioneer Anomaly which says there is something unknown (the theoretical Dark Matter perhaps) slowing Pioneer down considerably and altering its course. 'Science' is so unproven that in fact .. if every action has an opposite and equal reaction (pure speculation as it cannot be proven) then every 'thing' may have an opposite and equal thing .. as anti-matter suggests -- so that every law may have an opposite and equal anti-law - and every universe and anti-universe may have opposite and equal anti-universes - and of course those speculations have been written up .. the endless number of universes possibility for instance .. bubbles arising form bubbles unto infinity .. if infinity exists. Perhaps if (when) we see the beginning of the Big Bang (if there was one) we will also be seeing the other side of the beginning at the end - and I understand Hubble will soon be 50 times as powerful (?) so we may be able to see both beginning and end. What if they mirror? The mirroring of different parts of the universe is known already. For someone to discount someone else's 'the earth is round and not flat' theories is unfortunate.

... and besides ... what is a beginning but an anti-end - - and an anti-bnd but a beginning?

I'm not preaching,but this forum is about astronomy.
This happened before the founding of science,yet the names we currently use for these objects in space are the same as they were in this event.

38:31: Canst thou bind the sweet influences of Pleiades, or loose the bands of Orion?

38:32: Canst thou bring forth Mazzaroth in his season? or canst thou guide Arcturus with his sons?


God is bringing His power to Job's notice
Obviously,astronomy existed before science was even founded.Before science came along,astronomy was used to worship God.

I'm not trying to start a religious frenzy;I'm just using Biblical Astronomy

Also in that Old Testament somewhere "The earth is a sphere suspended on nothing" .. that was easily seen by the earth's shadow cast onto the moon .. easily seen, but not easily understood if an observer has theories cast in concrete .. which is why theories must be taught as theories .. Big Bang .. Evolution .. Whatever .. theories only.

Sputnick wrote:Also in that Old Testament somewhere "The earth is a sphere suspended on nothing" .. that was easily seen by the earth's shadow cast onto the moon .. easily seen, but not easily understood if an observer has theories cast in concrete .. which is why theories must be taught as theories .. Big Bang .. Evolution .. Whatever .. theories only.

Sputnick,

What else is there in science, other than "theories only"?

Take away theories, and this forum collapses into nothingness ... there would be nothing to discuss.

Of course, that is, unless you are conflating an everyday meaning of 'theory' (basically, 'guess') with the meaning the word has in modern science (which is about as far from 'guess' as you can imagine).

I hope you can clarify what you mean, please.

here I am preaching again(sorry)

2 Peter 3:10
But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.


Could this describe the end of the universe?Everyone agrees it will end at sometime or another.

I'm curious .... a great deal of astronomy can be done with nothing more than the unaided eye and some simple geometry and arithmetic.

For example:
* conclude that the Earth is a sphere (approximately)
* estimate its radius
* estimate the distance from Earth to Moon
* determine the existence of the Saros cycle.

Also, many 'transients' would have been obvious to people who looked at the sky, over the past millennium or five; for example:
* bright supernovae
* bright novae
* bright comets
* meteor showers.

There are also three readily visible external galaxies in the sky - the Large Magellanic Cloud, the Small Magellanic Cloud, and M31 (the Andromeda galaxy) - as well as a fourth that's visible under favourable conditions to people with exceptionally good eyesight (M33).

And so on.

Perhaps before concluding something about the universe that follows logically from two 20th centuries theories of physics (quantum mechanics and General Relativity) may be coded in one ancient book or another, mightn't it be a good idea to see how much 'easy' astronomy is there first?

Hi Nereid,

"Theorem - from theorema - to look at; a statement to be proved"
"Theory - from theoria - a Beholding; the explanation of how something exists. Both definitions from Highroads Dictionary

The differences are too subtle for my full comprehension, and I include question marks to note my insecurities in what I'm saying.
Is the Big Bang a Theorem according to scientists or a theory? Evolution?
Besides the people I've met on this forum I can only call one scientist "friend," a geologist, I don't know how scientists classify things.

But I guess if someone looks at something, and forms an opinion that 'this is what this thing is' .. (The Big Bang - Evolution - Quantum Mechanics) and then writes a statement inviting himself/herself/others to prove .. then that's a theorem. (?)

If someone looks at something and is positive that they know what it is, "Behold this is what it is", and then writes an explanation of what it is and how it exists, then that is a theory (?)

However, Beholding is in the eye of the Beholder; but if the beholder has friends in powerful places, then almost everyone becomes persuaded through school curiculum that the theory is fact, when it may not be so.

Once we fully realize how little we know, we can more easily accept that what one person sees as truth may or may not be truth. Is a star powered from within by nuclear or fission fire or from without by electromagnetic powers as proposed by Ralp Jeurgens? We may favour one theorem, but we really don't know. I favour the electromagnetic basis of the universe .. God walking across a carpet creating sparks which are galaxies .. but I can't say it is fact.

Thanks for taking me to the dictionary, Nereid.

jesusfreak16 wrote: This happened before the founding of science,yet the names we currently use for these objects in space are the same as they were in this event.

38:31: Canst thou bind the sweet influences of Pleiades, or loose the bands of Orion?

38:32: Canst thou bring forth Mazzaroth in his season? or canst thou guide Arcturus with his sons?


God is bringing His power to Job's notice
Obviously,astronomy existed before science was even founded.Before science came along,astronomy was used to worship God.

That we use terms mentioned in the bible for astronomical objects - somehow proves your point?

Well, since Pleiades and Arcturus are mentioned in the bible, yet these names actually originate in Greek mythology, can we therefore conclude that you must accept that the Greek gods actually exist?

Pleiades: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pleiades_%28mythology%29



Admin NOTE: the % symbols in that link wouldn't let me tuck it into a nice tagged link, not sure what's going on there.


Sputnik: you are confusing a theory with a hypothesis. In common speech these words have become synonyms; in scientific application this is not the case.

A hypothesis is an educated guess; it is only the beginning of scientific method. A theory is constructed, supported by observation or experiment, and makes quantifiable predictions. A theory must also be disprovable. General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, Darwinian Evolution, Big Bang Theory, and many, many others fall into this description.

Now, if you are making the argument that "theories don't explain everything by my religion does," you are correct that science does not explain everything. However, your "complete knowledge" is really only faith. This is fine, I have no problem with it. You should believe however you choose. When it comes to science, however, you are speaking a "different language."

You also must learn to accept that for those of us who choose science over faith accept the limitations of human understanding. Some of us would rather live our lives in the process of learning than believing we've learned.

Sputnick wrote:Hi Nereid,

"Theorem - from theorema - to look at; a statement to be proved"
"Theory - from theoria - a Beholding; the explanation of how something exists. Both definitions from Highroads Dictionary

The differences are too subtle for my full comprehension, and I include question marks to note my insecurities in what I'm saying.
Is the Big Bang a Theorem according to scientists or a theory? Evolution?
Besides the people I've met on this forum I can only call one scientist "friend," a geologist, I don't know how scientists classify things.

But I guess if someone looks at something, and forms an opinion that 'this is what this thing is' .. (The Big Bang - Evolution - Quantum Mechanics) and then writes a statement inviting himself/herself/others to prove .. then that's a theorem. (?)

If someone looks at something and is positive that they know what it is, "Behold this is what it is", and then writes an explanation of what it is and how it exists, then that is a theory (?)

However, Beholding is in the eye of the Beholder; but if the beholder has friends in powerful places, then almost everyone becomes persuaded through school curiculum that the theory is fact, when it may not be so.

Once we fully realize how little we know, we can more easily accept that what one person sees as truth may or may not be truth. Is a star powered from within by nuclear or fission fire or from without by electromagnetic powers as proposed by Ralp Jeurgens? We may favour one theorem, but we really don't know. I favour the electromagnetic basis of the universe .. God walking across a carpet creating sparks which are galaxies .. but I can't say it is fact.

Thanks for taking me to the dictionary, Nereid.

Orca has addressed much of what I wanted to say (and more besides), albeit somewhat differently.

Here, then, are a few extras ...

First, in modern astronomy (and astrophysics and cosmology and space science and the planetary sciences and astrobiology and ...) - the scope of this discussion forum - very little 'data' is 'theory-free' (or, if you prefer, very few 'observations' are 'theory-free').

For something like what H.E.S.S. produces, the impossibility of removing the theories of physics from the 'observations' is obvious; but it may not be so obvious when you look at your favourite night sky object through a pair of binoculars (to take just two extreme examples).

In the case of something you see through a pair of binoculars, a wide range of 'theories', in a general scientific sense, would do, to mediate between what you see (your personal, visual, experience) and what you observe (the interpretation your brain makes). And depending upon just how detailed an interpretation your brain makes/concludes, some subset of (the physics theory/theories of) classical optics would be adequate to account for everything.

"Truth" is another ball of wax ... it has been quite some time now since science (in general) recognised its limitations in regard to 'truth' ... and to simplify enormously, science is not in the 'truth' business. My own, personal, shorthand for what science does, in regard to 'truth', looks at the role of theories (the engine-room), their domains of applicability, and their consistency with all pertinent observations and experimental results.

And in this respect, your example can be used to show this well ("Is a star powered from within by nuclear or fission fire or from without by electromagnetic powers as proposed by Ralp Jeurgens?" - I think you mean Ralph Juergens, or Ralph Jürgens): his idea (it's nowhere near complete or extensive enough to be called a modern 'theory') is inconsistent with a wide range of observations and experimental results. On the other hand, a core-fusion powered Sun (to use a shorthand) is consistent with just about every pertinent observation and experimental result.

Nereid and Orca .. genuine thanks for sharing. It seems my picture of most scientists distorting theories as facts is wrong (?) - or are you two exceptions?

Please don't think I do not accept other views as legitimate opinions. I can gain nothing material from my scientific interest because it is not profession, only natural curiousity like most people's desire to find out what's around the corner or over the horizon. I enjoy those searches but also wonder how the horizon was created .. why is the earth a sphere .. why do some crystals form seemingly perfect cubes .. can we travel in time and through 'wormholes' (please note that popular conception of space 'tunnels' reduces humans to worms .. we must rise above diminishing ourselves).

Yes, I believe that an intelligent and all poweful Spirit created everything, but I am not out to persuade others that they must believe as I do. I don't believe that if people don't 'convert' they'll go to hell because I believe we all convert eventually. "We have gazed upon the stars too long to fear the night" was what one astronomer said. I do not think I know more than other believers or non-believers, especially because my faith is less than I pretend. I have admitted that my knowledge is extremely restricted. I do think though that many people posting on the forum would benefit from an expanded imagination of what is possible, perhaps Einstein was correct in seeking one law which would explain everything from tiny whirlpools in a stream to a spiral galaxy) and I do like to point out that the bible contains information which confirms scientific observation and theory, including Jesus walking through walls as a demonstration that yes, the individual components of atomic structure are so distant from each other that they could allow the passing through (each other) of 'solid' matter, in the same way galaxies pass through each other without causing stars to collide. I aso think Jesus and Peter walking on water was a demonstration that we can conciously alter what are considered 'laws', perhaps by the electric elements in our brain and body throwing switches in the machinery of gravity .. or perhaps by 'faith' in the Creator's ability to demonstrate to us that we have kinship with that Spirit.

The desire for humans to fly, without aircraft or balloons, is, I think, a memory of our existance before we became matter (the bible says God knew us before we were in the womb - according to that scripture we were already Beings having existance before the sperm bit the egg. However, many 'believers' say that we did not exist then, we were only in the Creator's plan .. whereas I believe we existed, so I don't discuss science or faith with many believers, or many scientists either. This forum is a wonderful opportunity.

I hope I can find questions to ask more often than I do.

It's amusing, Nereid, that Ralph Juergens (yes .. same name with a typo combined with a spelling error .. thanks) says the same thing that you did, but from the other side, 'that this theory explains everything better than the other theory.' Pride asserts "our" rightness over "theirs". Perhaps an answer can be had in melding the two theories, that the Electric Universe was used to create the fuel which the stars burn.

At this moment I obviously think I know everything because I can't think of a question to ask. Shameful.

Orga .. Thanks for your links, in which I found this: "In Greek mythology, Arcturus is a star created by Zeus to protect the nearby constellations, Arcas and Callisto (Ursa major and Ursa minor)."

Is there perhaps an astronomical influence of Arcturus which assists the bears in retaining their shape?

As an aside .. Jesus Freak's biblical quotes were from Job, written (according to my present understanding) 1,000 years (approximatley?) before the Greeks came to power.

I'm just stating my beliefs.Not trying to persuade anybody to believe anything.The reason I typed those verses was to merely support the reason for my beliefs.
I apologize if it sounded like I was being holier-than-thou earlier (I wasn't trying to be.)

jesusfreak16 wrote:I'm just stating my beliefs.Not trying to persuade anybody to believe anything.The reason I typed those verses was to merely support the reason for my beliefs.
I apologize if it sounded like I was being holier-than-thou earlier (I wasn't trying to be.)

You sounded fine to me. There's only one Holier than anybody else.

Sputnick wrote:
As an aside .. Jesus Freak's biblical quotes were from Job, written (according to my present understanding) 1,000 years (approximatley?) before the Greeks came to power.

The Old Testament goes back as far as 800 - 1200 BC. Greek civilization goes back much further than that; its origins are more like 3000 BC. Considering how much influence the Greeks had on the development of western civilization - literature, art and architecture; science and mathematics; logic and philosophy, to name a few - I seriously doubt they got their stories from anyone else. I find it much more likely that those who wrote the Old Testament were themselves, like so many others, influenced by the Greeks rather than the other way around.

You might have been thinking of the Romans; the initial founding of Rome was about 700 BC, the Republic and then the Empire forming much later than that. The Romans were heavily influenced by the Greeks.

---

As for naming celestial bodies after mythological beings, I think it is simply a convention. You'll notice that the moons of Uranus are named after Shakespearian characters; Umbriel and Ariel for example.

I don't think Shakespere existed in the Old Testament.
Also,Uranus and its moons were discovered after the Roman empire declined

Debate about bible history is generally futile. I had the understanding that it dates back over 3,000 years B.C. Debate about any topic in the bible is also generally futile, as most of us humans are so sure of what we believe that other presentations are nearly meaningless. Actually, debate about anything seems almost purposeless, because what are presented as facts sometimes but not generally are facts, but whether fact or not they are presented most often without references. I'm just glad that I have experienced enough genuine miracles to know that what the bible says about a perfect and eternal life after our material existance on this planet is finished is true .. that death no longer has power .. that not only stars and galaxies are 'above', but also heaven as it is most beautifully pictured. Therefore .. I choose not to debate, only to speculate about the 'engine' which God uses to maintain Creation.

agreed.
I'm no historian(or scientist)