SIMPLE Astronomical Evidence Supports the Bible

The Hubble Deeps accumulated the faintest light from what seems like a dark area of sky to us. Since only a few stars or close objects are seen in the exposures (stars have light spikes on long exposures), we are looking at the way the universe was long ago. Yet the sky around the chains of naked galaxies seems quite dark.If the space between our neighboring galaxies was filled with a thin gas, then they should seem fuzzy and out of focus. They are not - they are sharp and clear - and years of testing has not been able to detect much of anything between the nearby galaxies. This is why the dark matter they invented is perfectly invisible. In fact they defined it as having no interaction with light and only causing gravity. How appropriate to invent something which cannot be negated - you have to take on faith in their assumptions and mathematics. If it is gravity only matter, why doesn't it attract itself and form its own invisible galaxies? Why does most of the invisible matter in the universe get attracted to the tiny visible part and surround it? How did the gas from the big bang get swept out of the space between the nearby galaxies? Simple answer. It is obvious that scientists are praising the emperors invisible clothes which they sewed together with a cloth so fine even they can’t see it. The Bible has simple visible evidence that substantiates what it says. Is the Bible true? Can God really make something that is simple and obvious that confirms His word? Yet those whose thinking is founded upon Aristotle’s Conjecture end up having to invent invisible stuff to protect their assumption? Yet He is not a deceiver. He even identifies the source of their false way of thinking in His infallible Word. Think about it.

This would be incorrect. The properties of dark matter are not defined by scientists, but are only what they measure about them. They've measured only gravitational effects, but these gravitational effects are very real, as was already explained to you in Message 25, to which you posted no reply. Scientists do not yet know the makeup of dark matter, but the two proposals I'm aware of are WIMPs (Weakly Interactive Massive Particles) and MACHOs (Massive Astrophyical Compact Halo Objects). Whatever dark matter is eventually discovered to be, because its gravitational effects are very real we can be sure that dark matter is real, too. I'd like to ask two things of you. Please explain Aristotle's Conjecture in a way that other people can understand. And explain how rejecting this conjecture helps provide a better explanation for why the stars and clouds in galaxies have roughly constant orbital periods about the galactic center.--Percy

Whatever gravity is, no one has ever detected it or found a way to prove what it might be. Gravity does NOT work in galaxies, even in our own Milky Way. It only seems to work in our solar system. Even the two space craft that left our solar system began to deviate from the position they should have been in according to the laws of gravity. It is because they want our law of gravity to work in the distance that they have to invent undetectable things.Our ancestors invented our concept of time, mass and gravity using this ASSUMPTION . It is impossible to even define or measure such a thing as unchanging mass without this assumption. If matter changes as a relation, both sides of a balance scale would change_together over the years. The Apostle Paul twice uses Greek together_words to explain the corruption of matter in Romans 8:22. If things change the way Paul describes them, even inertial mass could seem constant - not because there is no change - but because everything is changing as a relationship. It is impossible to measure time as though it is a separate entity. We cannot isolate it from matter that changes or moves, even with atomic clocks, except with assumptions and mathematics. We cannot compare a past second with a present one without using this assumption. No society who claimed to live a few generations from the beginning every thought about time like we do. Biblical genealogies are similar to the pagan ones and both claimed their ancestors lived for long eons. Constants are not proof that things do not change at the fundamental level. Constants are associated with things that change as a relationship. Imagine a salt evaporation pond. As the sun warms the pond, water evaporates and salt precipitates out of solution so that in each local place, the local saline concentration stays at equilibrium. [from Latin: aequi + libra - equal balance]. When it rains, salt goes back into solution so that the concentration remains constant. We can measure constants and even use them to write a mathematical equation that can predict how the salt pond will react to change. Yet everything is changing. Billions of reactions in one direction are balanced by billions in the other. Everything is changing continuously - but things stay in balance. That is an example of things that change as a relation. Relational changes are continuous and complex - yet they can display harmony and balance. How do we know that things are changing when we measure constants?

• We can see the change visibly. The salt visibly builds up in the bottom of the pond and is scrapped off and sold.
• Our constants are defined in terms of the whole relationship that can shift together.
• When the relationship shifts - the constants remain the same BECAUSE things are changing continuously as a relation.

We measure constants of physics in the universe. Either there is no atomic change (atoms are perpetual motion machines) or atoms change as a relationship. No other possibility seems to exists. The Bible says everything is corrupting [Greek: phthora]. Science was historically constructed on Aristotle's contrarian assumption. No wonder the Bible and science can't be made to fit together! How can we determine if there really is continuous fundamental change - what the Bible teaches?

• When you can see the evidence of great change, especially in the distance
• and the assumption of changelessness ====>> results in constants
• Go with the simple evidence. Don’t try to force reality to fit our assumption. If you do, it results in nonsensical things like black holes and dark energy.

Remember to:

• Examine the historical assumption we used to arrive at those constants.
• That constants are not evidence for changelessness when we see visible indication for the opposite.

The simplest evidence from astronomy supports the Bible once we stop trying to tailor it to fit the first principle that Peter predicted.Which one is the TRUTH. The one that invents undetectable things or the one that can even predict how people think and that can accurately describe what we see in the sky. Think about it.This message has been edited by ptolemy, 04-19-2005 04:48 PMThis message has been edited by ptolemy, 04-19-2005 08:33 PM

This is why first principles are so critical. You cannot mix in the same pot first principles and what is derived from them. When you do, you jumble your mind and may actually believe that you measured something that doesn’t even exist.They teach science as a functional system, using practice examples, without ever discussing the historical assumption it was founded upon. I doubt many scientists have even heard of this assumption, although they use it every day. Even philosophers who study the historical arche and its epistemic effects don’t seem to test if it is true. Even measurements, logic and mathematics are not independent of a first principle.

• We cannot measure gravitational effects in the distance without using assumptions.
• We can look at what we see in the distance and say - wow - sure doesn’t look like what we see around here. That is not science, however. Science attempts to force the whole universe to fit its first principle.
• When they measured the supposed effects of gravity, they did not consider what is visibly clear - that galaxies are made of stars and gas that were ejected. Perhaps that is why they do not rotate like gravity demands. The Bible calls it a continuous spreading out - like a tent to dwell in.
• In order to test your first principle, you must leave the fortress built on the sands of an untested assumption and dig down to examine it at that level.
• Scientist cannot examine their first principle. To do so would be to violate their dogma that matter has not and does not continue to change or age as a relationship.

Can the God of the Bible make foolish the wisdom of our orderly system? Can He even defeat logic, mathematics and scientific reasoning in order to glorify simple faith in Jesus? It is evident that He can do what He says if you examine the first principle that Peter said is the first thing to know about the last days. Think about it.

Hi ptolemy,I've been following this thread on and off, and I wondered if you have a source for the claim that the space craft (voyager 1 and 2 I presume) are not on their predicted course. If true it would be interesting to examine.

---

'Most temperate in the pleasures of the body, his passion was for glory only, and in that he was insatiable.'

ptolemy Perhaps you would care to make a prediction of an as yet unobserved phenomena of the sky that we can use to lend credibility to your statement here.I remember having a discussion with a person here named buzsaw{consequently banned} in which he seemed to be under the impression that common sense is enough to answer the strange phenomena that appear when a good question is asked.Do you have a similar view? If so,perhaps you would like to answer a question I posed to him?This message has been edited by sidelined, Tue, 2005-04-19 05:31 PM

---

And since you know you cannot see yourself,
so well as by reflection, I, your glass,
will modestly discover to yourself,
that of yourself which you yet know not of

quote:

---

why doesn't it attract itself and form its own invisible galaxies?

---

BBC NEWS | UK | Wales | South East Wales | Astronomers find star-less galaxy(Sorry for the bare link but I can't think of anything to add yet feel that this is important)

ptolemy Let us see if you can give the "real" answer to this scenario.I am on board a train travelling at a constant velocity along the tracks as we pass a road crossing.I open my window and drop a steel ball from the train.To my eyes the path taken by the ball is a straight line{neglecting air resisitance}from my carriage to the ground below.
A man in the adjacent grass bordering the tracks views my misdeed and,being keen eyed, follows the path of the ball as it drops and witnesses it following a curved path {a parabola}.
This is a great puzzlement since we both witness the same event and yet we come to see 2 different paths,one straight and one curved.Since the event had the same origin and end point in each persons view we are left with the great puzzle of judging which path is the "real" one.
Can you explain this?

---

And since you know you cannot see yourself,
so well as by reflection, I, your glass,
will modestly discover to yourself,
that of yourself which you yet know not of

They spent years looking for some force that could account for the consistent slowing of the various spacecraft.mufor.org - This website is for sale! - mufor Resources and Information.I would hesitate to call the anomaly a force. Whatever gravity is, we cannot even show that it is a separate force. In Einstein's system, it might just be the warping of geometry by matter which also affects clocks. There is no way to separate gravity from matter and motions except with mathematical formulas. And the formulas themselves depend on assumptions about the fundamental nature of matter.

quote:

---

Einstein: The weakness of the principle of inertia lies in this, that it involves an argument in a circle: a mass moves without acceleration if it is sufficiently far from other bodies; we know that it is sufficiently far from other bodies only by the fact that it moves without acceleration.

---

Since you say you have been following this thread - let me throw something into the pot that shows that a first principle affects a lot more than astronomy.For almost a century we have been investigating atoms and the quantum. The more we study the more mysterious things become.

quote:

---

As Heisenburg would say, If you say you understand atoms and the quantum then you don't understand.

---

• Experiments that test Bell's Inequality have demonstrated that NO LOCAL theory of matter can fit the evidence. Twin particles are correlated even 11 kilometers apart.
• We cannot trick matter into revealing what it is - a particle or a wave.
• We cannot measure without affecting the measurement and the sub atomic universe seems to know about our attempts to measure. Even if we change the instruments after a subatomic entity has passed the decision point - such as a half silvered mirror - the outcome is affected by the action of the experimenter. Either the future can change the past, or signals can travel faster than light, or parallel universes exist, etc, etc.

But wait! There is a simpler answer. Atoms are a relationship. The simple Biblical answer: Matter is a relationship with light as the first three verses in the Bible show. What God made had no form or shape until he created light. Atoms are full of light - called virtual photons. Split an atom open and prodigious amounts of light come out - as in an atom bomb. All of the billions of mysterious quantum experiments have a simple non mathematical answer that fits the Bible. Duality, non locality, quantum strangeness - all of these would be normal and expected if atoms are a relationship - not made of independent unchanging things.What is a relationship? An intimate connection where the parts are not independent - they affect each other even though they may have a separate existence in space. (e.g. a worker bee is not an independent insect - it is part of a relationship - the hive. It cannot long exist away from the hive). In a relationship - no part functions alone. Nothing in an atom, its size, its charge, its dithering motions, even its mass is independent. (Colliding light beams have even created "mass" out of pure light).Does this relationship age or shift? Every atom in the distant universe is telling us that they do age or shift. Matter does decay in an orderly way like the Apostle Paul states. He twice uses Greek words for orderly submission and twice uses together_words to illustrate this phthora. The word phthora was used by Plato for the degeneration of matter itself. (Romans 8:19 - 22)Is the Bible God’s Word? Simple evidence in all directions, astronomy, geology, quantum - confirm that what the Bible says is valid. Why do scientists insist that their mathematical formulas model reality in the distant universe? Because the first principle that Peter predicted is the foundation for reasoning in these last days. Thing about it.

It is easier to use the measurements of astronomers from centuries ago, such as Claudius Ptolemy, as evidence against our first principle. That way we do not need to wait for some future confirmation.The James Webb space telescope, Webb Space Telescope GSFC/NASA , will have a configurable 6.5 meter beryllium mirror. It will slowly orbit in a Lissajous pattern (figure eight) around the L2 Lagrangian point on the far side of the moon. It is designed to clearly image the most distant primordial galaxies in the infrared spectrum. I predict that, if it works, the pictures will clearly show gas trails, bow shocks, ejections of tiny quasars-like naked galaxies or compact globular clusters shooting out and spreading out. This will confirm the text of the Bible, that the heavens are continually beaten out - like hammer blows on molten bronze. What the James Webb may reveal will confound the first principle that matter itself does not age. But I will make another prediction. Scientists will discover some invisible, non existent, complex, mathematical entity to explain away what is plain to see in order to protect their first principle. Another prediction closer to home.Every attempt to locate the subduction zones on the sea floor will fail. The sea floor is visibly spreading in a great global crack that runs through all the oceans. The only way to keep the earth from increasing in size was to postulate that subduction zones eat up old sea floor at the same rate as new floor is formed. The trenches, where the sea floor is supposed to dive into the earth, have undisturbed layered sediments. In most places, the sediments came from the land. If they continue to drill in the trenches, the missing oceanic clays and oozes will remain missing. If the earth does not increase in size, the trenches should be filled with oceanic sediments scraped off as thousands of kilometers of sea floor dive back into the interior of earth. I know this is a negative prediction - but it is one close to home. The lack of visible evidence for subduction will continue to support what Isaiah wrote, that the earth continually stretches out and everything from the earth also stretches out.Perhaps you are thinking, we measure the earth and it does not increase in size. Even a system of measurement would fail in a universe where matter decays as Paul states in Romans 8:19 - 22. We cannot measure locally what changes as a relationship, because everything is affected: clocks, meter sticks, orbits of satellites etc. Yet the continents do not fit back together except on a globe about 2/3 its present size. This is what one would expect if Isaiah is to be understood with hermeneutics, not science.Is the Bible true and can it be verified with simple evidence or must it be tested with science? He decreed that in His universe matter ages and changes so that faith in Jesus will triumph over the wisdom of this age. Yet He is not a deceiver. His Word warns that the elementary principles of philosophy can take us captive and even predicts the first principle of the last days.

how is this different than staying the same? if everything changes at rates constant to everything everything else ("as a relation") then it is observably no different than natural laws and constants from an internal perspective.

The link was good, but it was from the Malta UFO Research society!? I don't know what to make of your post. It looks like you've got some exclusion principle, uncertainty principle, duality of light, etc., all of which leads to the conclusion that the bible somehow explains this?You question some of the seeming absurdities that modern physics has revealed. But does this tell us that we have lots more work to do in order to unravel these new mysteries, or that we should throw the whole thing out in favor of old fairy tales that don't have anything to do with modern physics?

---

'Most temperate in the pleasures of the body, his passion was for glory only, and in that he was insatiable.'

Thank you Funkaloyd for the link to the invisible galaxy.As Isaiah stated, the spreading is continuous, so it should be visible even in closer galaxies. The Virgo cluster is close enough to see quasars shooting out dense material and to follow the gas trails, x-ray and radio contours. 3c273, the brightest quasar Chandra :: Photo Album :: 3C273 :: 06 Nov 00 and M87 with its bright jet are in Virgo. APOD: 2000 July 6 - A Jet from Galaxy M87 It is also where one can see that the redshift = distance formula does not work. As Halton Arp states, discordant redshifts are the norm - not the exception, and he spent a life time studying active galaxies with the 200 inch telescope.Perhaps Christians are thinking. But the Bible only lists 6,000 years. How could galaxies get spread out in that short a period? The Bible consistently and repeatedly calls the Old Testament era - the long ages past - the eons. That is not a contradiction if you reject our first principle. All ancient societies thought time was speeding up. All of them believed their ancestors lived for vast long ages. Old man Israel directly stated that days and years deteriorate from one generation to the next in the Bible. He even drove suckling lambs in 10 days from the Euphrates to Gilead. This would take 2 - 3 times that long today. Alexander the Great could march his armies further in a day than Napoleon - and they used the same means of transportation. This is simple evidence that ancient days were indeed long. Even today, we all notice that life speeds up as we age but we have invented clocks that are based on the assumption in question. The ancients had dynamic calendars - and even their astronomical measurements were made against a moving reference. The Babylonians used the stars in the ecliptic as the reference. They were not concerned about precesion because their reference system was dynamic, just like their clcoks and calendars.The Bible clearly describes a species of dinosaur living the Jordan during Job’s days. This mans Job mentioned that the water wears down the rocks while men got old. He says that getting old and dying involves God changing our faces and taking us away. The verb tense of the word "changes" is piel participle - an intensive continuous action. This word [shanah] is sometimes used for doubling, disguising, transmuting. (Job 14:18 - 22). The word he uses does not fit mere wrinkles. Measurements show that our brows thicken as we age. If we lived for vast long ages we also would have brows as thick as our thumbs. Yet the children’s skulls did not have thick brows. This simple evidence suggests that our ancestors really did live for vast long ages.I would rather go with a simple exegesis of the scripture than believe in invisible galaxies. The scripture is verifiable with visible evidence. The only way to verify something invisible is with assumptions that are accepted as dogma.

If it isn't possible to separate cause from effect, then you can't know whether the first principle has an effect. And since you can't articulate the first principle in understandable terms, or provide examples of the effects of the first principle, your use of the first principle in your arguments carries no weight. You cannot convince people that the first principle has an effect until you can tell people what it is. Once again, if you can't tell us what this historical assumption was, and you can't tell us what its effects are, it may as well not exist. What are those assumptions? This is incorrect. Science has actually discovered that all parts of the universe we can detect follow the same natural laws as here on earth. We see matter and energy here on earth, we see matter and energy throughout the universe. We see a star at the center of our solar system, we see stars throughout all space. Our solar system is part of a galaxy, and we see galaxies spread throughout the universe. Our solar system has planets, we've detected planets in orbit around nearby stars. The universe out there is pretty much the same as the universe around here. As already explained in Message 21, evidence does not support your view that the stars and gas of galaxies were ejected. The stars and gas of galaxies like ours do not have a radial outward velocity such as they must have if they were ejecta. Basing your conclusions on visual inspection of pictures of galaxies instead of detailed analysis is misleading you. You cannot concede that the material in galaxies revolves around the galactic center and remain consistent with your prior statement that the material in galaxies is ejecta that would have radial velocities. In order to make any point about a first principle, you must first define it, something you have yet to do. You haven't even provided an example of it. You need more than excuses for why despite its far reaching effects, it can't be defined or explained or even provide examples of the first principle at work. So far we have only your claim there is a first principle. You've provided no workable definition, no understandable explanation, no examples. I'm thinking that you should work toward more effective ways of making your points clear. You could have a very important and insightful point, but it does the world no good if you can't explain it to anyone.--Percy

ptolemyI would like to see if this post could be attempted by yourself. Let us see if you can give the "real" answer to this scenario.I am on board a train travelling at a constant velocity along the tracks as we pass a road crossing.I open my window and drop a steel ball from the train.To my eyes the path taken by the ball is a straight line{neglecting air resisitance}from my carriage to the ground below.
A man in the adjacent grass bordering the tracks views my misdeed and,being keen eyed, follows the path of the ball as it drops and witnesses it following a curved path {a parabola}.
This is a great puzzlement since we both witness the same event and yet we come to see 2 different paths,one straight and one curved.Since the event had the same origin and end point in each persons view we are left with the great puzzle of judging which path is the "real" one.
Can you explain this?