The Bible

Einstein showed that there is an equivalence betweeen matter and energy. In fact, he gave us the conversion factor - the square of the speed of light.

It's perfectly fine to add the energy of "two things".

 

The idea that galaxies are stationary is idiotic. Our own galaxy, the Sagittarius Dwarf Galaxy, is being absorbed by the Milky Way Galaxy as is several other smaller globular clusters. And the Milky Way and Andromeda Galaxies will also merge in several billion years.

 

Here are links that explains the nuttiness =
*Stated simply, Kullook discovered that if you base the end of times, scheduled to arrive in the year 6,000 according to the current Hebrew Calendar which places the destruction of the First Temple in 442 BCE, the age of Moshiach will last until 2,240 CE. But if you base the end of times on a date of destruction of the First Temple in the historically accurate 586 BCE, the year 6,000 of the Hebrew chronology falls in 2076 CE.

“Because we are only 58 years away from the end of the 6,000 years of history, we can consider that we are, indeed, at the end-of-times,” Kullok said.*

https://www.breakingisraelnews.com/110117/scientist-recalculates-time-til-end-of-days/

https://2028end.com/the-math/creation-day-6

 

Uh, yeah... but no one argues that because everyone knows better, so I'm a bit baffled that you mention it.

You mean "our own galaxy, the Milky Way, is absorbing the Sagittarius Dwarf Galaxy."

True. My "model" that I described wasn't meant to claim that galaxies don't approach each other and merge. My whole point was to challenge the claim of an "expanding" or "stretching" universe that did not "explode" initially. The claim is that the two are very different. I'm saying I don't see it. I'm saying the best explanations offered to describe an "expanding or stretching" universe are distinctions without a difference.

 

Here is some background =
*This same sense of shock came as scientists announced that the Sun, the Moon, our planet and its siblings, were not born into the familiar band of stars known as the Milky Way galaxy, but we actually belong to a strange formation with the unfamiliar name of the Sagittarius Dwarf galaxy!*
http://www.viewzone.com/milkyway.html

https://www.rediff.com/news/2007/jun/26earth.htm

 

One of the problems with the "explosion" idea is that very distant galaxies are moving away from us at faster than the speed of light. An "explosion" model doesn't explain that - I think it would break Einstein's special relativity. But, general relativity allows for objects to move away from each other at faster than the speed of light due to the space between them expanding.

This universe is continuing to expand. Also, galaxies are moving with respect to each other. On average, that movement points back in time toward a convergence, but it's not perfectly ordered. For example, the Milkey Way and Andromeda galaxies are on a collision course.

 

A lot of people discount the idea of *nothing*. But if they accept the idea that the universe is expanding then they should also have to accept the idea that it is expanding into where nothing existed before something moved in.

 

Why? Do you know what is at the edge of the universe? Do we know it is not pushing 'something' away or to one side? Do we know there is an edge to the Universe?
Just something that makes me realise how little we really know!

https://www.livescience.com/33646-universe-edge.html

 

Good cite. Great questions.

 

Then what is the "stuff" that is expanding? If there is no "stuff", there is nothing to expand and only movement can remain.

 

I think physicists would say that our universe is a collecttion of intracting fields. What I hear is that every piece of space has energy and even vacuums have vacuum energy. Some of the energy is present as matter. In fact, physicists detect particles coming in and out of existence in a vacuum. Remember that mass and energy are equivalent as Einstein showed with his famous equation - and vacuums have energy.

Maybe some of these questions are more easily answered without worrying about matter.

 

Dark matter and dark energy? https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/space/dark-matter/

Just a thought before bedtime. Now I must do my religious nightly reading. Tonight it's to Agni. Rig Veda Book 4 Hymn 5.

1. How shall we give with one accord oblation to Agni, to Vaiśvānara the Bounteous?
Great light, with full high growth hath he uplifted, and, as a pillar bears the roof, sustains it.
2 Reproach not him who, God and self-reliant, vouchsafed this bounty unto me a mortal,—
Deathless, discerner, wise, to me the simple, Vaiśvānara most manly, youthful Agni.
3 Sharp-pointed, powerful, strong, of boundless vigour, Agni who knows the lofty hymn, kept secret
As the lost milch-cow's track, the doubly Mighty,—he hath declared to me this hidden knowledge.

Oh, stuff it. I'll have to absorb this hidden knowledge tomorrow.

Night.

 

But there's no such thing as "vacuum energy". The seeming "energy" associated with a vacuum is actually the energy of the adjacent pressured environment. It would appear that when you suck on a soda straw, the vacuum draws the beverage upward. But what is really happening is that the ambient pressure is pushing it upward, right?

Maybe. But let's keep in mind that the theory says that the particles are not expanding, but are growing farther apart as "space" expands.

Maybe this has something to do with "space-time", which I consider to be just another way of talking about gravity.

I still can't buy into the notion of space "expanding" in the Big Bang and not just a case of a singularity exploding. I even went to a cosmology forum once. The participants all seemed very knowledgeable and discussed higher mathematics and quantum theory and applied the math to the theory to discuss it. But when I asked about the idea of the Big Bang being an expansion and not an explosion, they posted plenty of words but they couldn't communicate to me what the difference was or why it wasn't an explosion. They just kept saying it wasn't. And when the got frustrated they asked me to either leave or be banned.

 

Particles, even the stars in our galaxy, aren't getting farther appart due to the expansion of the universe. These pieces of matter are bound by other forces, such as gravity.

I'm sure that on my best day I'd be doing no more than recapitulting the answers you got from physicists on that other site. So, I'll just have to say that physicists all believe space itself is expanding and that evidence does not allow for a model that involves our universe exploding into space.

I think that right now there is a problem between the quantum mechanical view and the general relativity view. And, that problem involves gravity. So, if you make statements about space-time being just a way of tallking about gravity I'm pretty sure you will get some comments about that.

 

I don't understand that. I mean cosmologists say they are getting farther apart. The explanation of the "expanding universe" is commonly presented as spots on a balloon which, as the balloon expands, get farther from each other. Similar for the cookie dough analogy.

Yeah well this is all waaaay of topic and I'm surprised a mod hasn't deleted it yet. I guess I'll have to find a cosmologist and befriend him/her to get a sufficient answer.

 

When you suck on a straw you are just removing the air presssure that is pushing down on the straw contents. The pressure on the material in the glass will then push liquid up the straw.

You can tell this is what is happening by using a really long straw. Once the weight of the straw contents is equal to the air pressure on the liquid in the glass, you will no longer be able to suck material higher in the straw.

Pumps have the same problem. We put well pumps in the bottom of deep wells for this reason. We do that even though having the pump at the bottom of the well is difficult for maintenance, requires water proofing, involves an electrical connection down into the well, etc.

Another example is a weather barometer. There is a portion of the tube that is a vacuum. When atmospheric pressure increases it pushes more liquid up the tube.

 

Yup. That's essentially what I said. So I guess "vacuum energy" is a misnomer.

 

Vacuum energy is VERY different from anything that involves air pressure and a straw.

Physicists watch particles come in and go out of existence in a vacuum - a demonstration of the existence of energy in a vacuum along with the equivalence of mass and energy as per Einstein.

 

Another tough question regarding Christianity: According to my research online, Joshua and the Israelites entered Canaan after 40 years in the wilderness anytime between 1500 BCE to 1200 BCE. Yet for most of that time period, Canaan was in fact part of the Kingdom of Egypt.

That means that either Joshua did not conquer dozens of micro nations as described in the Bible, but instead conquered the land from Egypt OREgypt conquered Canaan AFTER the Israelites settled and divided the land (the period of the Judges before the Kingdom of Israel was established).

Why does the Bible omit this VERY IMPORTANT bit of information?






(I'll post this on two threads because I really want somebody to explain this to me)

 

deleted post

 

Simple. The Exodus in the Bible did not happen. The invasion did not happen. Most modern scholars believe, as do I, that the story was written while the Jews were in Babylon in the 7th century BCE. This was when they started to compile the OT. They used some existing written knowledge then made up a 'history' of where they came from.

You probably know this, but I'll repeat it.

The stories of Abraham, Moses and the Exodus were part of this 'history'. Look at the story of Abraham. Lived 2100/2000BCE according to Biblical genealogy, and the history of the area seems to confirm this, yet bought land from the Hittites who were not even around for several centuries. He is supposed to have met the Pharaoh while in Egypt. Most of that time the Pharaohs ruled from Thebes, far from the Nile Delta where Abraham would have been to feed his flocks. And Pharaoh, with all the foreign young princesses given him to wed by rulers who wanted to seal trade deals with him, and yet he wanted 70 year old Sarai?
Moses says Abraham was from Ur of the Chaldees. The Ur we believe the scribes were referring to is on the Euphrates. It's another 1000 years from Abraham's death before a nation called Chaldeans join with other nations to become the NeoBabylonian empire. Only then do the Chaldeans rule Ur. Moses had been dead at least 400 years before this, so how did he possibly know.

BUT it was close to the 7th century, so the scribes certainly knew Ur as being controlled by the Chaldeans.

There is no evidence of the stories outside the Bible. The scribes knew a lot about the country. They knew about place and events like the cities of the plain, Sodom and Gomorrah etc. and wrote these stories around them. Historical novels.
If it weren't for the OT most archaeology would be put down to natural events, or actions of other nations. The walls of Jericho fell, as they had done before - Jericho being in an earthquake zone - and without the Bible it would simply be, as it was, another natural event. Look at the wilderness journey. It only succeeded because the writers added miracles of food, water, etc. They actually had no idea of desert travel as is evidenced by their stories.

Only from around 1000BCE (around the time of the tribal leader David) do we have actual history which is backed up by archaeology. Then we have names/places and events in the Bible confirmed by outside sources on stele, artifacts, documents, letters and ancient palace and temple walls.

 

But to my knowledge, that particle creation and "un-creation" happens in super colliders, -not just in vacuums.

 

There was a super collision in our town the other day. Both cars were certainly 'un-created'.

 

What goes on in a collider is something else. Colliders are used to break particles apart in order to examine the constituant parts. Those parts may not last long before decaying or recombining, but this is a very different scenario from the natural occurrance of particles coming in and out of existence in a vacuum.

The wiki entry for vacuum energy is pretty readable. I don't mean to imply wiki is the final answer on physics, but it's a place to start.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_energy

 

Thanks for the link.

From your link:
"The effects of vacuum energy can be experimentally observed in various phenomena such as spontaneous emission, the Casimir effect and the Lamb shift"

What it describes seems to be, as an example, the energy released when an excited electron drops back into it's original "orbit". There's nothing I would consider to be odd, special, shocking, surprising, or mysterious about that. That is the basis of fluorescent lighting. Maybe there's something I missed.