RE: [CreationTalk] Proton Radius
Because Evilution rules in our world there are no rules really. It is what you like that matters and if you are smarter than anyone else your rules are the
Best ones because you are the superior of the species. Also, the superior of the species is able to take advantage of the inferior of the species. This morning
I discussed with local staff members of Destiny Rescue that 27 million children worldwide mostly girls are sold into sex slavery. Their lives are short and miserable.
This is going on all around us. Who will work to stop this? Christians are doing that. I am now going to join Destiny Rescue and help rescue girls from sexual slavery. I suggest you all think about it. This is one of the evil results in our world when fear of God our Creator is absent. If anyone is interested in hearing or knowing about this email me at phonehero@.... We as the church must become active to combat the atheist forces that enable so many to put people into slavery today right before us. This is an effect of naturalistic evolutionary teaching. _,_._,___
From: CreationTalk @yahoogroups.com [mailto: CreationTalk @yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Victor McAllister
Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2013 11:48 PM
Subject: [ CreationTalk ] Proton Radius
> According to reports, some scientists in Switzerland claim
>the accepted radius of the proton is wrong. They measurecolor=navy>
>it with a radius of 0.84087 femtometers. Another groupcolor=navy>
>from the Max Planck Institute of Quantum Opticscolor=navy>
>calculated that the proton radius is 0.84185 femtometers.color=navy>
>The accepted value is about 4% larger at 0.8768 femtometers.color=navy>
>One femtometer is 1.0 x 10^-15 meters. A nanometer iscolor=navy>
>1,000,000 femtometers. The theoretical radius of a proton iscolor=navy>
>much smaller than even the shortest wavelength of gammacolor=navy>
>light. Aldo Antognini, a physicist at the Swiss Federalcolor=navy>
>Institute of Technology said, "Maybe we don't understand
>fully proton structure."
> How do physicists measure the radius of a proton? Originally
>they fired electrons at protons and measure the angles at which
>they deflect. They can also radiate hydrogen that causescolor=navy>
>electrons to jump to a higher orbital. When the electron falls
>back to the ground state, it emits light. By carefully measuring
>the emitted light, scientists calculate the size of the proton
> The researchers who calculated a smaller proton used muonic
>hydrogen for their calculations. Muonic hydrogen has acolor=navy>
>negatively charged muon (that is allegedly 207 times heaviercolor=navy>
>than an electron) around the proton. Theoretically, the muoncolor=navy>
>orbits closer to the proton. When the muon is excited and later
>falls back to the ground state, it emits photons with X-raycolor=navy>
>wavelengths. They cannot actually measure the radius of acolor=navy>
>proton, since it is not even visible.
First of all note that this is a small affect in that its is only a 4% difference how ever since muons have smaller orbital radius than an electron being 207 times more massive this makes their transition energy values more sensitive to the protons radius thus making it more accurate. The new value is still with in the margin of error of earlier experiments so it while an interesting result it is hardly significant. It may show us some new things about how protons work but not much more than that.
> The pagan Greeks were the first to imagine indivisible,
> unchanging atoms that were solid particles. Modern
> physicists define atoms as complex structures. Yet they
> still imagine that fundamentally, matter is made of particles.
Your statement that “Modern physicists....still imagine that fundamentally, matter is made of particles.” is some what inaccurate in that it’s an over simplification. The particles that make up matter are not seen as unchanging solid particles but not only are they them selves complex structure but they exist as waves of probability that only act as solid objects when actually being observed. Furthermore the Information Universe shows that fundamentally matter is made of information not solid particles. The basic concept that matter is fundamentally information is direction that things seem to be going in physics and it provides strong support Biblical creation.
> Yet no one has discovered anything in an atom that cannot be
> further divided into light-like things.style='color:navy'>
While all sub-atomic partials do exhibit the same particle/wave duality as light, that it where the similarities end. Photons (the quantum particle of light) have no rest mass meaning that they can only travel at the speed of light. While other zero rest mass particles exist they have different properties and none of them are the fundamental particles of matter. There are three that make up normal matter the electron, the up quark and the down quark unlike light they have rest mass and can travel at less than the speed of light. They also interact readily with photons which do not interact readily with each other.
> God questioned Job about the house of light in Job 38:19 - 21.
> He mentioned that the house of light has a border and it is
> the place where darkness dwells. The paths of light within
> its house are mysterious and unknowable. The house of light
> is also very ancient. The house of light is the ultimate
> description of an atom.
Except that this is not what the Bible actually says.
Yes the counterfeit bible (New American Standard) you were basing your comments on says this.
Job 38:19-21 (NASV)
19 “Where is the way to the dwelling of light? And darkness, where is its place,
20 That you may take it to its territory And that you may discern the paths to its a home?
21 “You know, for you were born then, And the number of your days is great!
However it is not what the real English Bible (King James Bible) says.
Job 38:19-21 (KJB)
19 Where is the way where light dwelleth? and as for darkness, where is the place thereof,
20 That thou shouldest take it to the bound thereof, and that thou shouldest know the paths to the house thereof?
21 Knowest thou it, because thou wast then born? or because the number of thy days is great?
Note that a real Bible dose not ask “Where is the way to the dwelling of light?” but “Where is the way where light dwelleth?” While they look superficially similar they mean radically different things the counterfeit bible (NASV) asks about the way to where light dwells or it house as you said, but the real Bible (KJB) asks were is the way or path that light dwells in. The counterfeit bible (NASV) says that light has a place; while the real Bible (KJB) says that light has a path.
The New American Standard was made in 1971 after a scientific understanding of light was developed while the King James Bible translated in 1611 hundreds of years before a scientific understanding of light was developed. Now if translations of the Bible were being influenced by western scientific thought you would expect the New American Standard to be more scientifically accurate than the King James Bible but the reverse is true. It is however consistent with God inspiring the translation of King James Bible.
> What exactly is a proton? Some speculate that protons contain
> quarks, two up and one down. Are these particles? If they arew:st="on">Bell 's Inequality experiments
> particles, why don’t they always act as particles? If they are
> waves, why does matter interfere with itself - even when a
> single "unit of stuff" is involved?
> show that no local theory of matter fits the statistical evidence.color=navy>
This known in logic as a false dilemma fallacy and no such dilemma exists. Light and matter are both waves and particles which one they behave like depends upon whether or not some is looking. They both behave like waves when not be observed and like particles when they are being observed. Specifically when an observer has information that requires light and matter behave like partials then they do behave as particles other wise they behave as wave of probability. In the Information Universe the particle information simply is not calculated until needed only the possibilities are.
> Duality and non locality are expected if matter is a relationship
> with light, not particles.
This is a bases claim because you give no explanation for it.
However duality and non locality are expected if matter is fundamentally information since in such a universe details would not be calculated until needed but only the possibilities would be generally needed.
> The Apostle Paul stated that light reveals the truth
> and exposes error because all that is visible is lightstyle='color:navy'>
> (phos estin - Ephesians 5:13). Notice that he does
> NOT say we see the truth because of light, but that
> we see the truth because everything is light. Matter
> is a relationship with light, not particles.
Ephesians 5:8-14 (KJB)
8 For ye were sometimes darkness, but now are ye light in the Lord: walk as children of light:
9 (For the fruit of the Spirit is in all goodness and righteousness and truth;)
10 Proving what is acceptable unto the Lord.
11 And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.
12 For it is a shame even to speak of those things which are done of them in secret.
13 But all things that are reproved are made manifest by the light: for whatsoever doth make manifest is light.
14 Wherefore he saith, Awake thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall give thee light.
It is clear from the context of that this is not speaking of light in the sense of what our eyes see by nor does it in any way speak of any relationship between mater and light. These verse speak about bring the light of truth upon hidden things and more specifically the light of the word of God. Furthermore no place does is say “all that is visible is light” but “whatsoever doth make manifest is light.” Put simply is saying that what make things visible is light not that everything that is visible is light. Once again you twist scripture to fit your own ideas.
I have already responded to the rest of your claims more times than I have kept track of so I will not waist time on them now.
------ Charles Creager Jr.
> I agree with you entirely about Westcott and Hort,
> but I'm afraid that the theory about inspired translations
> just doesn't hold water and could only have originated
> in a large insular, and up till now, predominantly one
>-language nation like USA .
> There are decided differences between the early
> translations of the Bible in different languages. The
> major one that is closest to the KJV is probably the
> Dutch Statenvertaling. It often picks renderings
> which can be found in the KJV margin or the NKJV
> - these are generally not an issue of text but of traslation.
> So just considering those two, without considering all
> the others from the 16th and 17th centuries means they
> can't both be inspired, doesn't it?
First of all we should not expect divinely inspired translations from different languages to be identical not only are they different languages but that would not be consistent with the inspiration of the original autographs. In the original autographs God preserved the individual styled of human author, so in inspiring translations we should expect the same thing with the individual styled of those different languages. In fact we have an example of this in the New Testament in that when the New Testament writers quote the Old Testament they did so in Greek an therefore were giving inspired Greek translations of the Hebrew texts yet when both are translated in to English they do not read exactly. So it should not be a surprise divinely inspired translations from different languages should read some what differently.
As for the Dutch Statenvertaling, it was translated in 1637 which is 26 years after the King James Bible. The NKJV did not come out until 1982 and so could not have had an influence on it. That said I did a bablefish translation of both the Dutch Statenvertaling and Martin Luther’a German translation and got results quite similar to the King James Bible so There is not problem with all three being divinely inspired translations.
By the way I never said the every translation even from the Textus Receptus is inspiered so it is possible that only one of these three is an inspired translation. If that is the case it would be the King James.
> Rather one can certainly say that God provided skilled and
> Godly men to do a very good but not infallible job of
> providing us with his Word in our languages, and has also
> provided us with sufficient information in a range of
> preserved Greek and Hebrew manuscripts to be able to see
> what the correct word of God is - we can see both from their
> content and from the carelessness of their transcribers that the
> manuscripts that Westcott and Hort used are unreliable – but
> there are still many minor difference betweeen the manuscripts
> in the Textus Receptus tradition.
True there are minor difference between Antioch line manuscripts, the over whelming majority of which are spelling differences. The rest are minor copping errors that are easily averaged out over some 5000 manuscripts.
> It is worth pondering, even if we do not fully understand it,
> the first century situation with the Hebrew original and thestyle='color:navy'>
> Septuagint Greek translation of the Old Testament. It seems
> plain that the first Christians used the Septuagint to some
> extent, even though it is not altogether reliable.
One problem there is no evidence that the Septuagint as we know it existed in the first century AD. There are no complete copies before about the 4th century. Now there are some fragmented 2nd and 1st century B.C. Greek texts but they are only fragments. This suggests four possibilities.
1. These are fragments of individual translations that have nothing to do with the Septuagint, in which case the Septuagint as we know it is a total forgery with New Testament quotes of the Old Testament inserted to make it look good.
2. There was an ordinal corrupt Septuagint translated in Alexandria in accordance with the legend in to which New Testament quotes of the Old Testament inserted to make it look good.
3. There was an inspired Greek translation translated Alexandria in accordance with the legend that was used by New Testament writers when quoting the Old Testament but it became corrupt around the 2nd century AD.
4. There was an inspired Greek translation not associated with Alexandria was used by New Testament writers when quoting the Old Testament but it became corrupted by Alexandrian scholars around the 2nd century AD who fabricated the legend of its translation to get people to believe that their corruption was the original.
Personally I would say that #3 is the most likely followed by #3 then #2, with the least likely being #1.
Note to victor:
> Augustine also imagined that God created time in the beginning
> but time does not affect Him since eternal has to do with a
> timeless existence.
There third alternative between you view and Augustine’s that is suggested by the Information Universe. This is that the eternity that God exists in is not a timeless existence but that it has a primitive time of its own. That is that it has a sequences of events but this is not the time of our universe which was created by God, much like a video game has a time of its own. If I write a video game I am creating a time for that game that is separate from the time we exist in. This virtual time can be, slowed, stopped or spread up at the programmer’s will and possibly even by the player. In this case God is not affected by our time since he is out side our time which was created by God and has a beginning and end.
------ Charles Creager Jr.
> Traditions are inherited, established patterns of thought,
> action, or behavior. Traditions can, over the centuries,
> form belief structures that are generally accepted, although
> they are not verifiable.
Like the heretical Westcott and Hort translation on which your entire Changing Earth idea rests.
> Jerome translated the Bible into Latin in the fourth century.
> Many Christians in that era accepted the Greek Septuagintcolor=navy>.
> and the Vetas Latina as authoritative versions. Augustine
> was shocked that Jerome’s translation sometimes disagreed
> with the authoritative version. King James only Christians
> existed back then, only they were Septuagint only Christians
The Vetas Latina was considered authoritative and a divinely inspired translation by genuine Christians and it is seen as such by some today. The real Christians were persecuted by Constantine ’s counterfeit church. It also needs to be noted that Jerome’s translation (the Vulgate) was translated from the Alexandrian line of manuscripts so naturally it would disagreed with the authoritative version. (The Vetas Latina and Antioch Greek texts) One this does show is the idea of divinely inspired translation neither new nor unique to King James only Christians.
> divinely inspired translation. Jerome assumed all translators
> were mere scholars, not inspired.
No wonder Vulgate clearly was not so it’s no wander he would claim that. So your claim that there are no divinely inspired translations has its rood is the early Roman Catholic Church with the translator (Jerome)of their counterfeit bible. So it is you that is following Roman Catholic tradition, the same tradition which infected the real Christian Church though Westcott and Hort.
> cells, did not consult each other, but came up with identical
> translations by a miracle of divine inspiration. The Apostles
> normally quoted from the LXX, but not always. In some cases
> Paul provides his own translation from the Hebrew.
You are assuming that what we call LXX or Septuagint as we know it to day existed in the first century. Yes there is evidence of a Greek Translation from the 1st and 2nd centuries B.C. but they are fragmented and do not always agree with the Septuagint as we know it to day. Whether or not it was translated in Alexandria or whether or not the story of its translation is true, it is highly likely what we call the Septuagint today is a corruption of and not a faithful copy of that original Greek translation of the Old Testament. So that original Greek translation which may or may not have been referred to as the Septuagint may have been a divinely inspired translation. However, other than a few fragments it has been lost probably do to a deliberated effort to substitute the corrupt version the original.
> Jerome also waffles. In some places he went with Christian
> tradition, rather than strictly by the text. Evidently he also
> was plagued with traditions, as are all translators.
Jerome’s translation (the Vulgate) was translated from the wrong Greek texts to begin with so he was off to bad start.
> No translator was authenticated by miracles. Some translators
> were killed for their work. This should not shock us, since evenw:st="on">Indonesia
> illiterate Christians are killed today in rural areas of
> and India .color=navy>
First of all not every human author of the Bible was authenticated by miracles, Luke comes too mined as an example. However God has authenticated translations not by miracles but by their fruit. The Bible says “by their fruits ye shall know them.” God has clearly blessed some translations more than others. He has particularly blessed the King James Bible with lots of good fruit. By way of the King James Bible God brought about two nation wide revivals not just in the U.S. but they extended as far as England . Even since the there have been significant revivals by way of the authority of the King James Bible under individual evangelists like Charles Finley, D. L Moody, Billy Sunday, and Bob Jones Sr.
This has been the fruit of the King James Bible great revivals and more people genuinely won to Lord by the King James Bible than any other translation of the Bible and even more than the Greek and Hebrew texts including the autographs themselves. My self and my entire family are among the uncountable million lead to the lord by way of the King James Bible. So it is abundantly clear that God has mightily blessed and used the King James Bible would He really have done so if His hand had not been in it very translation, when He had had His hand on the original autographs. So while God does not authenticated translations by miracles He has authenticated some translations by their fruit. He has also particularly authenticated King James Bible by giving it more fruit than any form of the Bible.
> One of the most powerful traditions in the western system is
> the notion of time. Western Christians imagine that time exists,
> that God created it, and that they can measure it.
Except for the fact that this view of time is more than a tradition but it is a verifiable fact.
We can measure time and the measuring device is called a clock. There are natural and man made clocks all which agree with local rates on the passage of time so for there to be any changes in these clocks they would all have to be affected exactly alike or else it would be easily detected. Now there is a two related theories in physic that show how this could happen they are Special and General Relativity. Both Special and General Relativity have been verified by every test we give them and they both show that time is a part of our universe.
Quantum mechanics another theory in physics that has been verified by every test we give it shows that time is actually pixilated in that there is a minimum amount of time between instances in time called Planck time (5.39106 × 10−44s) and this is a fundamental part of the universe. This is expanded on in the Information Universe such that Planck time represents the frame rate of the universe with all changes that occur from one Planck time to next being calculated before the next Planck time clicks over. This is the same affect seen in video games and other forms computer simulations, though minimum time unit for these simulated realities are much larger (a few fractions of a second) than Planck time.
The point is that all this show that time not only exists and can be measured but that it is a fundamental part of the universe, such that if God created the Universe he created the time of this universe as well. Now eternity may have a primitive “time” that is simply a sequence of events and thus be more like your idea of time but in this universe time exists and God created it.
> Christian traditionalists have constructed certain code words
> for supporting medieval Catholic notions of time, such as the
> word eternal. The Greek word for eternal (unending) is only
> found twice in the Greek New Testament. The Bible uses eon
> words both for life without end and the O.T. age. It says He
> is the olam God, the eon God.
The Hebrew word `owlam is only used in reference to God twice and neither time the King James Bible translates as eternal.
Genesis 21:33 (KJB) And Abraham planted a grove in
Beersheba , and called there on the name of the LORD,
the everlasting God.
Isaiah 40:28 (KJB) Hast thou not known? hast thou not
heard, that the everlasting God, the LORD, the Creator
of the ends of the earth, fainteth not, neither is weary?
there is no searching of his understanding.
NOTE that the King James Bible says “everlasting God” and not eternal God here.
Deuteronomy 33:27 (KJB) The eternal God is thy refuge,
and underneath are the everlasting arms: and he shall
thrust out the enemy from before thee; and shall say,
In fact the King James Bible only uses the fraise “eternal God” once and the Hebrew word is NOT `owlam but qedem which means “that which is before” and is most often translated East.
In the Greek you are correct that ἀΐδιος (aïdios) which means eternal, everlasting is only used twice however that you only correct point
αἰών (aiōn) which is indeed the word from which we get “eon” how ever it a rather complex word that can refer to for ever, an unbroken age, perpetuity of time, eternity as well as the world or the universe depending on the context however it is translated eternal only twice which is the proper translation in some contexts.
1 Timothy 1:17 (KJV) Now unto the King eternal, immortal,
invisible, the only wise God, be honour and glory for ever
and ever. Amen.
The is the only time αἰών (aiōn) is use in relation to God and its intent is to indicate God’s never ending existence.
The Greek word most often translated eternal is αἰώνιος (aiōnios) which while it is derived from αἰών (aiōn) does not have exactly same meaning. αἰώνιος (aiōnios) can mean without beginning, without end or both. This is the word used for eternal life.
Now let’s look at hr two key English word in the Eternal and Eternity
From Webster Dictionary 1828 Eternal means “Without beginning or end of existence.”
From Webster Dictionary 1828 Eternity means “Duration or continuance without beginning or end.”
Webster Dictionary 1828 basically has the same word meanings as used in the King James Bible so. Note that nether of these word imply timelessness and in fact excellent translations of the Greek word with in the contexts they are in, The Only reason you insist other wise is that your Changing Earth notion is totally inconstant wit the King James Bible so you have to claim that its full of Catholic influences so as to discredit it in the minds of what few read you have.
> Our creation translations generally follow the medieval traditions.
> We use verb tenses to make the text fit our concept of time and
> our traditions. Yet there were no verb tenses in ancient Hebrew.
> The Hebrew verbs only explains how things happen, continuing
> or completed, without using concept of time to explain when.
You have it totally wrong the use of the past tense in the King James Bible is not about following any traditions, medieval or other wise. It is about translating from Hebrew to English. While Hebrew verbs do not have a time tens English verbs do. So in doing a proper and inerrant translation from Hebrew to English it is necessary to provide the correct English tense based on context, which is exactly what the King James Bible translators did. It is a safe bet that they knew Hebrew better than you do particularly do to fact that some them where reading and writing Hebrew as children.
> For example the KJV states:
> Genesis 1:14-19 And God said, Let there be lights in the
> firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night;
> and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days,
> and years: And let them be for lights in the firmament of
> the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. And
> God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day,
> and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
> And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give
> light upon the earth, And to rule over the day and over the
> night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God
> saw that it was good. And the evening and the morning
> were the fourth day.
Well this proves that you at least have access to a King James Bible.
> The Hebrew says He continued (imperfect verbs) to command
> lights, He continued to form the Sun, Moon and stars and
> continued to place them.
WRONG!!!!!! You are incorrectly inserting the definition of an imperfect verb in font of the verb a more accurate way wording a translation using the imperfect tense would be:
God saying lights. God making the Sun, Moon and stars and placing them.
You are totally messing up on the use of imperfect verbs. With out time tenses the past present or future of an event needs to be determined by context. All the use of imperfect verbs here is doing is showing that God was in the process of saying, making or placing at the time the verses took place which would have been in the past so proper English translation is past tense just as used in the King James Bible.
> The word firmament comes from Greek and Latin
> traditional exegesis of the word raqiya. Raqiya is
> the noun form of the verb to spread out, which is
> used nine times in Genesis chapter one. Literally,
> it is the place that is spreading out.
Yes the Hebrew word Raqiya means the place that is spreading out. This is a perfect match to modern idea from General Relativity the space is expanding that is being spread out.
Now for firmament which does indeed indicate an extended rigid structure. So the use of the word “firmament” indicates that space is an extended rigid structure. This may surprise you but it actually proves the divinely inspired nature of the King James Bible. The King James Bible was translated in 1611 and about 300 later Albert Einstein developed General Relativity which indicates that space is an extended rigid structure just as the King James Bible indicated 300 years earlier by using the word “firmament.”
It gets even better because when we put these two divinely inspired words together (Raqiya and firmament) they indicate that space an extended rigid structure that can be; and is being) stretched. This is possible be mater and energy can stretch the extended rigid structure of space like a weight does to an other wise rigid peace of rubber. So the divinely inspiration the use of both Raqiya and firmament is confirmed by General Relativity since General Relativity came about 300 years after the King James Translator used the word “firmament” and about 3,500 after mosses used the word Raqiya.
> Why not accept the literal text literally?
I do accept the literal text literally I just don’t see the same meaning in the literal text that you do. You just do not really understand Greek or Hebrew as well as you egotistically think you do thing as is evident by the fact that no one sees the same things in the text that claim to.
------ Charles Creager Jr.
> The word pulsar is a contraction of “pulsating star.” Most
> pulsars are observed with radio telescopes, as they flash
> several times a second. Pulsars, according to the accepted
> theory, are rapidly rotating neutron stars with the magnetic
> poles offset from the rotational axis. Allegedly, intense
> beams rotate like lighthouse beacons from the magnetic
> polar caps. After forty five years of astronomical studies,
> pulsar theories are still largely unsupported by evidence.
This is not what paper indicates however he does indicate that there problems with the official pulsars model but he also indicates that there are new models in progress that have some supporting evidence in that they produce results close to what is observed.
Also this paper was written in august of 2003 so it is nearly 10 year old so given that is it the state of pulsar theory it is by definition out of date since pulsar theory has progresses since then and the theories he mentions have been further developed. You clearly know that this paper is 10 years old by virtue of the fact that you added 10 year to the 35 years mentioned in the paper to get your 45 year figure. In doing this without informing us that the paper is 10 years old hints at being intellectually dishonest.
> A recent article in the Journal Science concerns the
> unusual pulsar PSR B0943+10. The astrophysicist
> Joanna Rankin explained what is unusual about
> this pulsar. Most pulsars flash regularly in radio
> waves. This one does the same but then reduces
> radio pulses to chaotic noise and switches to
> pulsing in X-rays. When the radio flashes are
> bright, the X-rays are dim. The pulsar can switch
> from radio to X-rays in less than a second. This
> pulsar conflicts with the theory that a magnetic
> field is offset from the spin axis of a rapidly
> rotating star that is as dense as the nucleus of
> an atom.
On what do you base your claim that, “This pulsar conflicts with the theory that a magnetic field is offset from the spin axis of a rapidly rotating star that is as dense as the nucleus of an atom?” The paper is only available by subscription so I can not get at it. However I have looked at sever articles about this discovery that do not indicate any such thing. In fact there are already pulsars known that exhibit similar behavior, what is unique about this one is that goes between radio waves and x-rays. This switching is provably are a result of changes in the pulsar magnetic field. Its interesting but not pulsar shattering.
> What is going on in the heart of a pulsar? Matter
> continues to take on form as God continues to
> command light to continue to be. Jets emerge
> from the heart of a pulsar as it continues to spread
> out a great cloud of dust. Sometimes the spreading
> out of matter is explosive, and sometimes it just
> emerges from its compact stage in pulsed jets.
Of course you can invent a unique explanation of that fits you theory. It is so vague and flexible you can squeeze any thing into like Evolution and the Big Bang. It’s one thing to explain something that has already been discovered it quite another thing to have a theory predict that something will be discovered and have that prediction verified. My Catastrophic Model of Martian Geology has done this several times.
> He continues to spread out the plural heavens in
> unbroken continuity, exactly as the scriptures state.
WONG that is not what the Bible not in English and not in Hebrew it is nothing but a result of your ineptness in interpreting and translating Hebrew.
> According to the Hebrew text for Job 37:18, God spreads
> out dense things in the heavens into fine clouds.
It says nothing of the kind. Not in English and not in Hebrew
Job 37:18 (KJB) Hast thou with him spread out the sky, which is strong, and as a molten looking glass?
Given that the word sky here indicates space this verse actually indicates that God spread out space and that is a strong structure. This is consistent with General Relativity which was developed 300 years after the King James Bible was translated.
Now it is true that word translated sky (shachaq) most commonly refers to dust or clouds which why it some used to refer to the sky or heaven. The reason why the King James translators would have translated shachaq as sky is the context and the fact that it seems to have been used idiomatically for the sky or heaven since you never translated idiomatic statements literally, it will always produce inaccurate results. The word translated (chazaq) strong means just that with no indication of being dense. Once again you show an inability to properly interpret and translate Hebrew.