11747Re: [CreationTalk] RE: Celestial Mechanics
- Feb 20, 2014Victor, Changing Earth CreationistChanging Earth Creation is not some new theory. It is accepting the text as a contemporary would. The impediment to understanding Creation and earth history hermeneutically is western rationality. Modern students are trained to think with the idea that matter is NOT continually changing itself (changing relationally). Scientists must assume this since it is the historical, fundamental basis for their definitions, empirical measuring units and mathematical laws. We can trace this idea to the friars of the 13th century who tailored Aristotle's system to fit their religion about a changeless God who exists outside of time. The Catholics were the first to imagine that matter is changeless, which they called the "essence (noun) of substance is changeless." Peter predicted how the last days mockers would obfuscate the evidence that the plural heavens are out-old because they think all things remain the same.
All people during the biblical age understood that everything changes. Their earth histories remembered the terrors of close planet passages. The Bible uses two words (spelled differently in Hebrew and Greek) that our bibles translate as Rahab. The Canaanite woman's name and Egypt seems to be related to the word for wide or spacious. The other spelling evidently means to behave proudly or arrogantly. The Lord fights this second rahab using words for the sea serpent, Leviathan, just like the descriptive terms used by the pagan Canaanites for the crushing of one of their planet gods. All ancient societies mentioned the crushing of a planet by Jupiter. Each society had a different name for Jupiter, but they all seemed to agree about the battle when a great watery planet (sometimes called the sea or the watery deep) was crushed. THe Bible mentions the crushing of this second rahab 4 times. (two in Job, one in Psalms and One in Isaiah) so evidently it happened during the dinosaur age near Jobs lifetime.
There is no way to adapt the Bible to fit western science without seriously distorting it. No contemporary could even think scientifically. Only in the Catholic west did people learn to think with the metaphysical idea that matter is not changing.
Job's descriptions of vast geological changes during a lifetime in the dinosaur era is supported by the skulls of our ancestors and the geological evidence that the Mediterranean repeatedly and gradually dried. That makes no sense in the western concept of linear days and years. Have you actually read Jack Cuozzo's book? He shows the the evidence for gradually thickening brows in his technical addendum. I pointed out to him several years ago what Job said about their faces changing before they died. He said he would start using Job 14 in his talks about Neanderthal skulls.
By the way, several experiments show that the effects of gravity (whether you believe it bends the vacuum of space so that the earth rides vacuum rails like a train) or it is a force makes no difference. Physicist Tan Ke Yun from the Chinese Academy of Sciences published his estimate of the speed of the effects of gravity as between 0.93 - 1.05 % light-speed. He used two gravimeters coupled to rubidium clocks, one in Mongolia and one in western China, to monitor the tidal phase delay during three eclipses. If gravity's effects travel at light-speed, there would be a shift during an eclipse, since in our days the lunar effects are delayed 1.3 seconds and the solar effects 8.3 minutes. Allais' paraconical pendulum, although he was not timing the effects of gravity, showed that effects from the Sun and Moon vary depending on which side of the Earth the instrument is one (relative to those distant bodies). Such a difference must torque our ration rate and push our orbit outward.
The aberration of gravity is a simple reason WHY days and years always accelerate. In fact, the aberration of gravity explains not only how ancient people lived for vast eons in few days, but why planet settle into logarithmically spaced orbits. Gravity is not a perpetual motion effect as in Newton and Einstein. It evidently emerges from matter as matter changes relationally. The visible history of galaxies (at many ranges) shows the atomic clocks accelerating along with the outward accelerating stars streams. Of course what is visible makes no sense to a scientist. It is easier for a scientists to imagine density waves or invisible matter surrounding every galaxy than to accept the visible history of how galaxies formed. At many ranges, we observe the stars coming out, moving outward in the opposite direction from scientific theories based on Doppler and invisible matter.
Looking at the stars is not an option. The Hebrew commands us to look at the sky. It is only in the plural heavens that his glory is on display without words, available to all who have eyes. The Old Testament states repeatedly - that in unbroken continuity He spreads out the plural heavens (the galaxies) like a tent He continuously calls the stars to come out, he continues to spread out dense things into cloud like things (Job 37).The triumph of the literal Biblical creation over science is not far in the future. New telescopes such as ALMA, the James Webb and several giant terrestrial telescope under construction will confirm what we have already seen in galactic history. No one can come to know him personally by means of science, only by the faith of a sinner who trusts him alone for salvation. What glory he will get when the pride of man in their science is laid low and the Lord alone is exalted.
Sorry I did not answer everything. I answered many of those things before. Google kicked me off blogspot for having the audacity to claim the Bible triumphs over science, I am having to reorganize hundreds of documents to hopefully publish some of them again on a new hosted site so I am way behind in my work.
The literal text of creation is supported by the strongest evidence possible, as we observe at many ranges how probably more than a trillion galaxies formed diametrically opposite from all scientific theories.On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 6:38 PM, Chuck <chuckpc@...> wrote:
> I do not claim expertise in biblical Hebrew or celestial
However your interpretation of biblical Hebrew is at odds with every English Translation of the Bible (including the King James) and every other interpretation of biblical Hebrew for the past 2000 years. So either you are wrong or every other Hebrew scholar including Jews is wrong. So your Changing Earth Creationist idea assumes your interpretation of biblical Hebrew is correct and no body else for last 2000 years or so has gotten it right. You may not claim expertise in biblical Hebrew but you do assume you have expertise in biblical Hebrew beyond that of any one else that has live for the last 2000 years. Despite this fact you have never provided any thing but you say so that your interpretation of biblical Hebrew has any validity.
> I do claim that visible creation (cosmic history as in
> happened) confirms the grammatical Hebrew text
> and casts doubt on the traditional, Latin-imitating
> translations found in modern bibles.
First of all what you call the grammatical Hebrew text is just interpretation of biblical Hebrew text and NOTHING more. Second what call “visible creation” has no existence in reality. There are no images showing what you claim it is a figment of you imagination and inability to understand digital images and not thing more.
> The ancient and modern astronomy methods, are not
> compatible. Early astronomers did not make calendars
> to measure time. They tuned their lives to the varying
> cycles of nature.
The falsehood of this claim is easily demonstrated by the fact that ancient civilizations had astronomy based calendars even the Sumerians such a calendar. Even ready the account if the Flood in Genesis 7-8 shows that Noah not only had a calendar but used it to keep track of time during the Flood.
> They saw never ending changes in the very places we claim clock-like orbits.
PROVE IT. Give just one reference to support this claim. Frankly I don’t think you can. You make these claims as though they a proven fact, but you never ever give any supporting evidence.
> They also looked with longing on the days of the early patriarchs who lived for geological ages.
900 years is hardly geological ages, even Sumerian and Egyptian account only give to 10,000 of year, still not geological ages. By way the term “geological ages” is an invention of Old Earth scoffers.
> Job listed geological phenomena (such as the dried Mediterranean) during the few days of his life back in the dinosaur era.
No he does not. NOPLACE does Job say any thing about a dried Mediterranean. Also so your reference to the dinosaur era shows you are accepting the uniformitarian claims of Evolutionists.
> He mentioned how their faces changed (doubled) before
> they died. If we lived long enough to observe gradual
> geological events changing the Earth, we would grow
> Neanderthal skulls from vast age.
This actually disproves your claim getting a Neanderthal skull from skull only requires living 400-500 years not geological ages.
>The Bible also mentions the shattering of a planet (called rahab)
> four times, twice in Job, which are similar to the ancient accounts
> of a crushed planet god.
Please provide some evidence any evidence that rahab was a planet. I suspect that all you doing is looking for things that you can interpret to fit your Changing Earth Creationist idea. Actually Psalm 87:4 shows that rahab was nation not a planet.
Psalm 87:4 (KJB) I will make mention of Rahab and Babylon to
them that know me: behold Philistia, and Tyre, with Ethiopia;
this man was born there.
NOTE that Rahab is found being referenced with a bunch of Nations not planets
> Ancient astronomical accounts and scientific claims
> are often incompatible because each is based on
> contradictory assumptions and define evidence
> differently. Scientists assume that matter is not
> changing, which allows them to focus on empiricism
> and mathematical symbols as evidence. The earliest
> astronomers used visible evidence. Records of
> ancient eclipses almost never fit modern ephemerides,
> which has been known since the seventeenth century.
> Scientists just assume our computerized methods are
> correct and adjust the ancient date, location or
> observation to fit our calculations. The earliest
> astronomical records, the Venus Tablets, list the lunar
> dates (over 21 years) for Venus’ appearances and
> disappearances. Its disappearance on the far side of
> the Sun were long by weeks and its appearances as
> morning an evening star were each too short (by half
> of the extra weeks of disappearance). The short
> morning and evening phases and the double long
> disappearances on the other side of the Sun suggest
> that the solar system was smaller 3,500 years
Please provide a reference to this preferably one with actual figures rather than vague descriptions.
> Radar reflections show that Venus has a rotational resonance with Earth at conjunction, as though we once tidally affected each other.
Actually this resonance claim has been shown to be wrong. Even if it were true God could have created it that way.
> The Bible mentions close passages (e.g. Joshua 10:13 &
> Judges 5:20-21) like the accounts of the early Greeks and
Joshua 10:13 (KJB) And the sun stood still, and the moon
stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon
their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher?
So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted
not to go down about a whole day.
No close passage mentioned here God did performed a miracle to stop the Earth rotation but there is no reference to your alleged passage mentioned.
Judges 5:20-21 (KJB)
20 They fought from heaven; the stars in their courses
fought against Sisera.
21 The river of Kishon swept them away, that ancient
river, the river Kishon. O my soul, thou hast trodden
No close passage mentioned here either. Verse 20 sounds like a meteor shower.
> Some early galaxies (in distant clusters) have emerging
> clumps packed densely with stars, like equally spaced
> beads on a necklace. At many ranges we observe how
> trillions of stars streams accelerate out, spiral out, as
> billions of galaxies grew from unformed matter in the
> core of each galaxy - often growing into huge, dusty,
> local, growth spirals.
NO such thing is observed. In fact stars in spiral galaxies actually orbit actually orbit in the direction opposite the spiral arms not with them as you claim so this is totally bogus.
> Nowhere in the vast universe do we see any evidence
> for atomic perpetual motion which is the basis for
> modern empirical physics.
This shows you know nothing about modern atomic theory, Atoms do not represent perpetual motion and no one but you claim they do.
> Nowhere do we see any evidence for accretion of stars
> from dust.
This we can agree on because accretion of stars is an evolutionary idea.
> Instead, we see jets emerging and forming dusty nebulae
> and long strings of stars by ejections,
Give a reference for this.
>Someone might insist, we measure linear clocks, and we use
> the laws of physics to land spacecraft on Mars so our
> clock-based laws must be correct. Sending a spacecraft
> to Mars involves periodic course and speed adjustments,
> fine tuning it up to the last day to adjust the path to home
> in on the visible surface features. Despite this fine tuning,
> we always land long, as though our estimate of Mars’
> position is slightly off.
Please give a reference for your claim that Mars spacecraft always land long. Even if true it would have nothing to do with Mars’ position but a result of the fact that you want to land a space craft as slowly as possible meaning that any effort to slow it down more than cause it to land long.
> If all clocks are accelerating, this could explain the Flyby
> and Pioneer Anomalies. In the Pioneer Anomaly, NASA
> used local atomic clocks to send radio signals that were
> transponded back to Earth by four spin stabilized spacecraft.
> The carrier modulated a signal that when returned served
> to mark twice the range. NASA also used the returned
> frequencies to calculate Doppler range rate. The Doppler
> calculations kept slowing anomalously with distance.
WRONG a speeding up of atomic clocks would produce a redshift, the Flyby and Pioneer Anomalies are both blue shifts, making them the opposite of what your model predicts.
> What could cause orbits to not quite close, but to gradually
> open out. Jacob understood that the days and years of the
> son are shorter and worse than those of the fathers (Genesis 47:9).
Genesis 47:9 (KJB) And Jacob said unto Pharaoh, The
days of the years of my pilgrimage are an hundred and
thirty years: few and evil have the days of the years of
my life been, and have not attained unto the days of the
years of the life of my fathers in the days of their pilgrimage.
This verse says noting of the kind. Jacob is talking about the length of his life not how long days and years were, this is even shown by the context.
> Neither Newton nor Einstein predicted tangential forces.
> Yet gravity aberration must produce tangential forces. At
> present, since gravity propagates at light speed, the Sun’s
> gravitational effects are offset by 20" towards the Earth’s
>bow. This steadily accelerates Earth’s orbit outward and
> concurrently speeds up our spin rate (relative to the former
> positions and rates - not clocks). Since gravity aberration is
> greater for more distant planets, all large objects in the solar
> system (and planets around nearby stars) end up in
> logarithmically spaced orbits, as we observe.
WRONG, gravity does not propagate at the speed of light, changes in gravity propagate at the speed of light, gravity it self does not propagate, it is a curvature of space and NOT propagating from a body like light, so there is NO gravity aberration.
Even if there were a gravity aberration its affect on the Earth’s rotation would be orders of magnitude lower than the Earth’s obit sp they would not remain in sync. Even worst as the Earth object spiraled out ward gravity would slows it down so years would be getting longer not shorter. Once again reality is opposite what you claim.
> The visible history of how clocks keep accelerating along with
> the outward accelerating orbits (a violation of all modern
> gravity theories) suggests that gravity is what emerges from
> matter as it changes relationally. As matter changes relationally
>, its volume increases, its inertial properties change along with
> the speed of its light clocks, as we observe in billions of growing
Except that you so called visible history des not exist. Noting you claim is observed any place in the unversed and in many cased reality is the opposite of what you claim.
> The sun is changing from red to blue as its matter changes relationally.
> 3000 years ago the Egyptians painted a red sun and Homer claimed
> the sky was bronze, as it would have been if matter is continually
> changing relationally.
Please provide a reference to your claims about the Egyptians and Homer. Even if true it seeing the sun redder and the sky bronzen could result from dust in the air. We see this effect on Mars. On Earth the Flood would have left a lot of dust in the atmosphere and you this would be consistent with a young Earth as well.
Victor the simple fact is that because you NEVER give any reference all we have is you say so, on every thing you claim. You also obscure well known phenomenon by using unusual terms fit you ideas. To make matters worst when it is possible to check your claims they always prove to be bogus, and several cases reality is the opposite what you claim.
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>