Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Who said God wrote Yeshiyahu?As I understand it, everywhere we look in the universe, the galaxies are moving away from us. If the universe is not expanding, how would you account for what we see?
You're not going to like this answer: "Covering yourself with light as with a garment, stretching out the heavens like a tent." Psalm 104:2
True - compare Isaiah 40:22,26 which not only refers to the expansion/stretching out of the heavens but also links the existence of stars (v.26) to God's power (Hebrew singular koach) and dynamic energy (Hebrew plural ohnim). It is therefore to be expected that plural forms of God's energy are involved with the expansion rate of our universe. Also, since God is invisible it comes as no surprise (to me) that 2 forms of energy involved, gravity and dark energy, are invisible.
Concerning 'tent' it should be noted that the tent of meeting/tabernacle in Scripture is geometrically described as a rectangular prism wherein only 2 dimensions of the relatively flat tent cloths are specified. This may be a hint to how the singularity at the so-called Big Bang was formed since the corner points of the intersection of these tentcloths have no dimensions (reminds me of a singularity).
Also, these tentcloths were relatively flat which is a hint that our universe is 'flat' as many scientists are coming to believe. Quite in contrast with the earth being round (Hebrew chuwg in verse 22 = circle in 2 dimensions, sphere in 3 dimensions)..Also, these tentcloths were relatively flat which is a hint that our universe is 'flat' as many scientists are coming to believe. Quite in contrast with the earth being round (Hebrew chuwg in verse 22 = circle in 2 dimensions, sphere in 3 dimensions).
oh, it's round ...
funny how the religionist are back to a universe (is) shaped like a tent that is flat but somehow a triangle for its beginning point as though fact when in fact no such idea could ever have been imagined during the time they are referencing.
- of course who wrote what they, newtonian are referencing were playing the same game then the same religionists are playing today.
using a fabricated book for their religion rather than facing the realities of true insubstation and the satisfactions associated with true discoveries than manufactured deceptions.
Your Bias is showing, Breezewood. No problem - just so you know I noticed.
I will stick with the scientific aspect of your post - claiming our universe is round. Earth is round - that is clearly stated in Isaiah 40:22 and you are right that no humans back then could have known this, That is evidence that while the writers were human, the Author was God.
But the illustration in the latter part of verse 22, after stating the expansion of our universe like a fine gauze (with its threads and filaments as in computer simulations of the actual appearance of our universe) gives the illustration of a tent. This hints at the possibility of a flat gauze-like universe since the sacred tent of meeting was a rectangular prism - but you claim our universe is round.
Why?
Lots of problems with the above.
What evidence can you present that the Gods wrote Isaiah? A magic pen writing on magic parchment.
Actually, the ancient Greek philosopher Pythagoras was among the first to propose the sphericity of the Earth in the 6th century BC, (<---- before the invention of Christianity), using among his proofs how the sail of a ship could be observed to disappear over the curvature of the Earth.
Plato also espoused a spherical Earth in the Phaedra, and his student Aristotle gave his reasoning in his book On the Heavens in 350 BC. His proof rested on the facts that persons living in southern lands see southern constellations higher above the horizon than those living in northern lands, that the shadow of the Earth on the Moon during a lunar eclipse is round, and that since objects fall to Earth towards its center means that if it were constructed of small bits of matter originally, these parts would naturally settle into a spherical shape. His demonstration was so compelling that a spherical Earth was the central assumption of all subsequent philosophers of the Classical era. He also used the curved phases of the moon to argue that the Moon must also be a sphere like the Earth.
In fact, the global nature of the earth was clearly demonstrated by Eratothenes 2,200 years ago (by comparing shadow lengths in Alexandria and Syene at high noon).
"A scientific theory is NOT an opinion. If you want to be rich and famous find a fact that disproves a scientific theory."I didn't think it needed to be specified but:No red shift.Tell us what that would look like.Why doesn't it look like it stopped?The universe reached the expansion point defined by The Creator and stopped.
Redshift - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
I hate to be harsh, but the article itself claims it's all theory (opinion).
If I wanted an opinion, I have over 100 Rabbis in town with various PhDs in science who teach in every university in NY and NJ.
I admit my adrenal glands cannot tolerate when anyone calls a theory a fact.
A scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." Theories are formed from hypotheses that have been subjected repeatedly to tests of evidence which attempt to disprove or falsify them.
A scientific theory is NOT an opinion. If you want to be rich and famous find a fact that disproves a scientific theory.
That is one of your stupidest sentences ever.
Be rational, don't get desperate.
Short answer...you only have the right to answer for YOUR version of the universe.The short answer: No. We're born, we live, we die. That's it. There is no intelligence controlling the universe.
Who said God wrote Yeshiyahu?As I understand it, everywhere we look in the universe, the galaxies are moving away from us. If the universe is not expanding, how would you account for what we see?
You're not going to like this answer: "Covering yourself with light as with a garment, stretching out the heavens like a tent." Psalm 104:2
True - compare Isaiah 40:22,26 which not only refers to the expansion/stretching out of the heavens but also links the existence of stars (v.26) to God's power (Hebrew singular koach) and dynamic energy (Hebrew plural ohnim). It is therefore to be expected that plural forms of God's energy are involved with the expansion rate of our universe. Also, since God is invisible it comes as no surprise (to me) that 2 forms of energy involved, gravity and dark energy, are invisible.
Concerning 'tent' it should be noted that the tent of meeting/tabernacle in Scripture is geometrically described as a rectangular prism wherein only 2 dimensions of the relatively flat tent cloths are specified. This may be a hint to how the singularity at the so-called Big Bang was formed since the corner points of the intersection of these tentcloths have no dimensions (reminds me of a singularity).
Also, these tentcloths were relatively flat which is a hint that our universe is 'flat' as many scientists are coming to believe. Quite in contrast with the earth being round (Hebrew chuwg in verse 22 = circle in 2 dimensions, sphere in 3 dimensions)..Also, these tentcloths were relatively flat which is a hint that our universe is 'flat' as many scientists are coming to believe. Quite in contrast with the earth being round (Hebrew chuwg in verse 22 = circle in 2 dimensions, sphere in 3 dimensions).
oh, it's round ...
funny how the religionist are back to a universe (is) shaped like a tent that is flat but somehow a triangle for its beginning point as though fact when in fact no such idea could ever have been imagined during the time they are referencing.
- of course who wrote what they, newtonian are referencing were playing the same game then the same religionists are playing today.
using a fabricated book for their religion rather than facing the realities of true insubstation and the satisfactions associated with true discoveries than manufactured deceptions.
Your Bias is showing, Breezewood. No problem - just so you know I noticed.
I will stick with the scientific aspect of your post - claiming our universe is round. Earth is round - that is clearly stated in Isaiah 40:22 and you are right that no humans back then could have known this, That is evidence that while the writers were human, the Author was God.
But the illustration in the latter part of verse 22, after stating the expansion of our universe like a fine gauze (with its threads and filaments as in computer simulations of the actual appearance of our universe) gives the illustration of a tent. This hints at the possibility of a flat gauze-like universe since the sacred tent of meeting was a rectangular prism - but you claim our universe is round.
Why?
Lots of problems with the above.
What evidence can you present that the Gods wrote Isaiah? A magic pen writing on magic parchment.
Actually, the ancient Greek philosopher Pythagoras was among the first to propose the sphericity of the Earth in the 6th century BC, (<---- before the invention of Christianity), using among his proofs how the sail of a ship could be observed to disappear over the curvature of the Earth.
Plato also espoused a spherical Earth in the Phaedra, and his student Aristotle gave his reasoning in his book On the Heavens in 350 BC. His proof rested on the facts that persons living in southern lands see southern constellations higher above the horizon than those living in northern lands, that the shadow of the Earth on the Moon during a lunar eclipse is round, and that since objects fall to Earth towards its center means that if it were constructed of small bits of matter originally, these parts would naturally settle into a spherical shape. His demonstration was so compelling that a spherical Earth was the central assumption of all subsequent philosophers of the Classical era. He also used the curved phases of the moon to argue that the Moon must also be a sphere like the Earth.
In fact, the global nature of the earth was clearly demonstrated by Eratothenes 2,200 years ago (by comparing shadow lengths in Alexandria and Syene at high noon).
Yeshiyahu took the visions he received from God to the Great Assembly and they spent a lot of time studying the descriptions of those visions into a message.
Did you read the definition?TYh
"A scientific theory is NOT an opinion. If you want to be rich and famous find a fact that disproves a scientific theory."I didn't think it needed to be specified but:No red shift.Tell us what that would look like.Why doesn't it look like it stopped?The universe reached the expansion point defined by The Creator and stopped.Redshift - Wikipedia
I hate to be harsh, but the article itself claims it's all theory (opinion).
If I wanted an opinion, I have over 100 Rabbis in town with various PhDs in science who teach in every university in NY and NJ.
I admit my adrenal glands cannot tolerate when anyone calls a theory a fact.
A scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." Theories are formed from hypotheses that have been subjected repeatedly to tests of evidence which attempt to disprove or falsify them.
A scientific theory is NOT an opinion. If you want to be rich and famous find a fact that disproves a scientific theory.
That is one of your stupidest sentences ever.
Be rational, don't get desperate.
That's your opinion.
I certainly agree about Newton - notice my user name. As for Kaku - I am not familiar with him. Tell me more!Short answer...you only have the right to answer for YOUR version of the universe.The short answer: No. We're born, we live, we die. That's it. There is no intelligence controlling the universe.
Very intelligent scientists like Einstein, Newton, Michio Kaku and Neil deGrasse Tyson, for example, have come to precisely the opposite conclusion you have.
The chances that this immensely vast and complex organism, the universe, just happens to be operating on
the same exact principles and rules all on it's own are unthinkably absurd.
I'm glad you found a link for me with no mention of opinion:Wow! Cool ad hominem.Astronomy 101:Meaning...be specific.No red shift.Tell us what that would look like.Why doesn't it look like it stopped?The universe reached the expansion point defined by The Creator and stopped.
Most age and vast space monitoring equipment has internal databases to report what is believed to be a measurable fact.
aka best guess based on someone's theory.
The displacement of spectral lines toward longer wavelengths (the red end of the spectrum) in radiation from distant galaxies and celestial objects. This is interpreted as a Doppler shift that is proportional to the velocity of recession.
With the possible exception of our local group of galaxies, EVERY galaxy we see is moving away from us. Is there any other explanation other than the universe is expanding?
Don't take this the wrong way...You are hilarious in an innocuous sort of manner.
I knew you were desperately Googling for even one Red Drift article that would not have the word opinion or interpreted stamped all over it.
But you searched and couldn't.
As they say in China...
Try more harder.
As for interpretation, in science you interpret data and formulate a theory that explains it. If your theory continues to explain new data as they are collected and no new data conflict with it, it will eventually become accepted as 'fact'.Redshift - Wikipedia
It should actually be Yeshayahu.T
Who said God wrote Yeshiyahu?As I understand it, everywhere we look in the universe, the galaxies are moving away from us. If the universe is not expanding, how would you account for what we see?
You're not going to like this answer: "Covering yourself with light as with a garment, stretching out the heavens like a tent." Psalm 104:2
True - compare Isaiah 40:22,26 which not only refers to the expansion/stretching out of the heavens but also links the existence of stars (v.26) to God's power (Hebrew singular koach) and dynamic energy (Hebrew plural ohnim). It is therefore to be expected that plural forms of God's energy are involved with the expansion rate of our universe. Also, since God is invisible it comes as no surprise (to me) that 2 forms of energy involved, gravity and dark energy, are invisible.
Concerning 'tent' it should be noted that the tent of meeting/tabernacle in Scripture is geometrically described as a rectangular prism wherein only 2 dimensions of the relatively flat tent cloths are specified. This may be a hint to how the singularity at the so-called Big Bang was formed since the corner points of the intersection of these tentcloths have no dimensions (reminds me of a singularity).
Also, these tentcloths were relatively flat which is a hint that our universe is 'flat' as many scientists are coming to believe. Quite in contrast with the earth being round (Hebrew chuwg in verse 22 = circle in 2 dimensions, sphere in 3 dimensions)..Also, these tentcloths were relatively flat which is a hint that our universe is 'flat' as many scientists are coming to believe. Quite in contrast with the earth being round (Hebrew chuwg in verse 22 = circle in 2 dimensions, sphere in 3 dimensions).
oh, it's round ...
funny how the religionist are back to a universe (is) shaped like a tent that is flat but somehow a triangle for its beginning point as though fact when in fact no such idea could ever have been imagined during the time they are referencing.
- of course who wrote what they, newtonian are referencing were playing the same game then the same religionists are playing today.
using a fabricated book for their religion rather than facing the realities of true insubstation and the satisfactions associated with true discoveries than manufactured deceptions.
Your Bias is showing, Breezewood. No problem - just so you know I noticed.
I will stick with the scientific aspect of your post - claiming our universe is round. Earth is round - that is clearly stated in Isaiah 40:22 and you are right that no humans back then could have known this, That is evidence that while the writers were human, the Author was God.
But the illustration in the latter part of verse 22, after stating the expansion of our universe like a fine gauze (with its threads and filaments as in computer simulations of the actual appearance of our universe) gives the illustration of a tent. This hints at the possibility of a flat gauze-like universe since the sacred tent of meeting was a rectangular prism - but you claim our universe is round.
Why?
Lots of problems with the above.
What evidence can you present that the Gods wrote Isaiah? A magic pen writing on magic parchment.
Actually, the ancient Greek philosopher Pythagoras was among the first to propose the sphericity of the Earth in the 6th century BC, (<---- before the invention of Christianity), using among his proofs how the sail of a ship could be observed to disappear over the curvature of the Earth.
Plato also espoused a spherical Earth in the Phaedra, and his student Aristotle gave his reasoning in his book On the Heavens in 350 BC. His proof rested on the facts that persons living in southern lands see southern constellations higher above the horizon than those living in northern lands, that the shadow of the Earth on the Moon during a lunar eclipse is round, and that since objects fall to Earth towards its center means that if it were constructed of small bits of matter originally, these parts would naturally settle into a spherical shape. His demonstration was so compelling that a spherical Earth was the central assumption of all subsequent philosophers of the Classical era. He also used the curved phases of the moon to argue that the Moon must also be a sphere like the Earth.
In fact, the global nature of the earth was clearly demonstrated by Eratothenes 2,200 years ago (by comparing shadow lengths in Alexandria and Syene at high noon).
Yeshiyahu took the visions he received from God to the Great Assembly and they spent a lot of time studying the descriptions of those visions into a message.
The vowel "i" is mistaken - from what source did you find this vowel?
No, I didn't - please remind me.Did you read the definition?TYh
"A scientific theory is NOT an opinion. If you want to be rich and famous find a fact that disproves a scientific theory."I didn't think it needed to be specified but:No red shift.Tell us what that would look like.Why doesn't it look like it stopped?The universe reached the expansion point defined by The Creator and stopped.Redshift - Wikipedia
I hate to be harsh, but the article itself claims it's all theory (opinion).
If I wanted an opinion, I have over 100 Rabbis in town with various PhDs in science who teach in every university in NY and NJ.
I admit my adrenal glands cannot tolerate when anyone calls a theory a fact.
A scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." Theories are formed from hypotheses that have been subjected repeatedly to tests of evidence which attempt to disprove or falsify them.
A scientific theory is NOT an opinion. If you want to be rich and famous find a fact that disproves a scientific theory.
That is one of your stupidest sentences ever.
Be rational, don't get desperate.
That's your opinion.
I now realize why every discussion in the Talmud is backed up by a concrete example .
I'm sure you can Google the name.I certainly agree about Newton - notice my user name. As for Kaku - I am not familiar with him. Tell me more!
I'm glad you found a link for me with no mention of opinion:Wow! Cool ad hominem.Astronomy 101:Meaning...be specific.No red shift.Tell us what that would look like.Why doesn't it look like it stopped?The universe reached the expansion point defined by The Creator and stopped.
Most age and vast space monitoring equipment has internal databases to report what is believed to be a measurable fact.
aka best guess based on someone's theory.
The displacement of spectral lines toward longer wavelengths (the red end of the spectrum) in radiation from distant galaxies and celestial objects. This is interpreted as a Doppler shift that is proportional to the velocity of recession.
With the possible exception of our local group of galaxies, EVERY galaxy we see is moving away from us. Is there any other explanation other than the universe is expanding?
Don't take this the wrong way...You are hilarious in an innocuous sort of manner.
I knew you were desperately Googling for even one Red Drift article that would not have the word opinion or interpreted stamped all over it.
But you searched and couldn't.
As they say in China...
Try more harder.
As for interpretation, in science you interpret data and formulate a theory that explains it. If your theory continues to explain new data as they are collected and no new data conflict with it, it will eventually become accepted as 'fact'.Redshift - Wikipedia
I'm sure you can Google the name.I certainly agree about Newton - notice my user name. As for Kaku - I am not familiar with him. Tell me more!
Cool...a theory.I'm glad you found a link for me with no mention of opinion:Wow! Cool ad hominem.Astronomy 101:Meaning...be specific.No red shift.Tell us what that would look like.Why doesn't it look like it stopped?The universe reached the expansion point defined by The Creator and stopped.
Most age and vast space monitoring equipment has internal databases to report what is believed to be a measurable fact.
aka best guess based on someone's theory.
The displacement of spectral lines toward longer wavelengths (the red end of the spectrum) in radiation from distant galaxies and celestial objects. This is interpreted as a Doppler shift that is proportional to the velocity of recession.
With the possible exception of our local group of galaxies, EVERY galaxy we see is moving away from us. Is there any other explanation other than the universe is expanding?
Don't take this the wrong way...You are hilarious in an innocuous sort of manner.
I knew you were desperately Googling for even one Red Drift article that would not have the word opinion or interpreted stamped all over it.
But you searched and couldn't.
As they say in China...
Try more harder.
As for interpretation, in science you interpret data and formulate a theory that explains it. If your theory continues to explain new data as they are collected and no new data conflict with it, it will eventually become accepted as 'fact'.Redshift - Wikipedia
You just reminded yourself.No, I didn't - please remind me.Did you read the definition?TYh
"A scientific theory is NOT an opinion. If you want to be rich and famous find a fact that disproves a scientific theory."I didn't think it needed to be specified but:No red shift.Tell us what that would look like.Why doesn't it look like it stopped?The universe reached the expansion point defined by The Creator and stopped.Redshift - Wikipedia
I hate to be harsh, but the article itself claims it's all theory (opinion).
If I wanted an opinion, I have over 100 Rabbis in town with various PhDs in science who teach in every university in NY and NJ.
I admit my adrenal glands cannot tolerate when anyone calls a theory a fact.
A scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." Theories are formed from hypotheses that have been subjected repeatedly to tests of evidence which attempt to disprove or falsify them.
A scientific theory is NOT an opinion. If you want to be rich and famous find a fact that disproves a scientific theory.
That is one of your stupidest sentences ever.
Be rational, don't get desperate.
That's your opinion.
I now realize why every discussion in the Talmud is backed up by a concrete example .
Some of us have respect for science and how it is supposed to work. Every scientific theory that went down the toilet proved sicience works as it is supposed to work.A theory is a theory, which is why it's called a theory.I didn't think it needed to be specified but:
A scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." Theories are formed from hypotheses that have been subjected repeatedly to tests of evidence which attempt to disprove or falsify them.
A scientific theory is NOT an opinion. If you want to be rich and famous find a fact that disproves a scientific theory.
How many scientific theories went down the toilet in the last 50 years?
Way too many.
If I were Hawkins, I could make up new shit every 6 months to retain my position.
I'm not trained in advanced mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology, etc.Some of us have respect for science and how it is supposed to work. Every scientific theory that went down the toilet proved sicience works as it is supposed to work.A theory is a theory, which is why it's called a theory.I didn't think it needed to be specified but:
A scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." Theories are formed from hypotheses that have been subjected repeatedly to tests of evidence which attempt to disprove or falsify them.
A scientific theory is NOT an opinion. If you want to be rich and famous find a fact that disproves a scientific theory.
How many scientific theories went down the toilet in the last 50 years?
Way too many.
If I were Hawkins, I could make up new shit every 6 months to retain my position.
Not believing a scientific theory is your right but it obligates you to propose an alternative that explains the data.
So it is not only the theory you object to, it is the red shift data itself. A shift we can see and measure with current instruments.Cool...a theory.
We are too far away to calculate anything with any current instruments.
I believe we will overcome this.
The overwhelming number of scientists (trained in advanced mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology, etc.) support an expanding universe and evolution. Do you listen to them?I'm not trained in advanced mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology, etc.
I listen to people who do and readily tell them when they get to a point where I lose them.
My supervisor knows this stuff cold...he lives and breathes astronomy and fascinates me with his explanations of the current theories.So it is not only the theory you object to, it is the red shift data itself. A shift we can see and measure with current instruments.Cool...a theory.
We are too far away to calculate anything with any current instruments.
I believe we will overcome this.
Do you have an alternative theory for what we see?
The best technology is free......get an ad-blockerI'm not trained in advanced mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology, etc.Some of us have respect for science and how it is supposed to work. Every scientific theory that went down the toilet proved sicience works as it is supposed to work.A theory is a theory, which is why it's called a theory.I didn't think it needed to be specified but:
A scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." Theories are formed from hypotheses that have been subjected repeatedly to tests of evidence which attempt to disprove or falsify them.
A scientific theory is NOT an opinion. If you want to be rich and famous find a fact that disproves a scientific theory.
How many scientific theories went down the toilet in the last 50 years?
Way too many.
If I were Hawkins, I could make up new shit every 6 months to retain my position.
Not believing a scientific theory is your right but it obligates you to propose an alternative that explains the data.
I listen to people who do and readily tell them when they get to a point where I lose them.
My daughter is one of those people (born a genius).
But I always buy the best technology because I admire the science and artistry that goes into it's production.
