Lights and Stars what’s the difference

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.

JamOn

Well-known member
Jun 10, 2019
2,675
1,094
113
#81
Also, we never see any other side of the moon than which is visible to us at any time, although something called lunar libration allows for more than 50% of the moon's surface to be visible to us over time (59%). Another interesting thing: Passover always happens on a full moon, so the argument that non-believers may put forth regarding the sky darkening for 3 hours at the time of Jesus' crucifixion being a solar eclipse is a cosmological impossibility :D
Yes indeed I think there’s also a thing called tidal lock orbits, if I was to use a symbolic gesture of that i’d say the Father and Son are tidal locked
 

posthuman

Senior Member
Jul 31, 2013
25,913
7,087
113
#82
Yes indeed I think there’s also a thing called tidal lock orbits, if I was to use a symbolic gesture of that i’d say the Father and Son are tidal locked

Take heed that you do not despise one of these little ones, for I say to you that in heaven their angels always see the face of My Father who is in heaven.
(Matthew 18:20)
is this tidal locking? :unsure:
 

JamOn

Well-known member
Jun 10, 2019
2,675
1,094
113
#83
Take heed that you do not despise one of these little ones, for I say to you that in heaven their angels always see the face of My Father who is in heaven.
(Matthew 18:20)
is this tidal locking? :unsure:
Hmm yes it appears so, I like that :)
 

rily51jean

Junior Member
Apr 30, 2017
73
14
8
#84
kDThe sgtars are for the asstrologers to understand seasons and sometimes signes. It is explained in the Word but not in great detail. Astrology then is not the hocus pocus it isnow. There really was a language of the stars that certain folks were given to understand, it isin the Book.
There is a difference between "Astrology", and "Astronomy"
#1 Astrology: is the divination of the supposed influences of the stars upon human affairs and terrestrial events by their positions and aspects: and an "astrologer" is one who practices divination to forecast future events fortunes by use of astrology
Astrology is an occult practice of divination of the future, and/or of fortunes whether good or evil, which the Lord God forbade

#2 Astronomy: the science of the celestial bodies and of their magnitudes, motion and constitution
and an "astronomer" is one who is skilled in astronomy, or who makes observations of celestial phenomena
Astronomy is science of natural study of the Sun, the Moon, the Stars, Comets, Nebulae, Dying Stars, and not for divination of peoples futures.
Some famous ancient Astronomers: Pythagoras (570-495 BC); Eratosthenes (276-194 BC); Aristarchus of Samos (circa 230 BC); Hipparchus (190-120 BC); Ptolemy (or Claudius Ptolemais; 100 AD - 170 AD)
 

dcontroversal

Senior Member
Dec 12, 2013
44,124
17,461
113
#85
Watching this video was cool.....NOT SAYING THIS or THAT I BELIEVE THIS, but....what if the universe, with all it's stars, galaxies etc. was the MIND of GOD and we are just a conscience thought within his infinite, ever expanding MIND.......
 

JaumeJ

Senior Member
Jul 2, 2011
16,545
3,367
113
#86
There is a difference between "Astrology", and "Astronomy"
#1 Astrology: is the divination of the supposed influences of the stars upon human affairs and terrestrial events by their positions and aspects: and an "astrologer" is one who practices divination to forecast future events fortunes by use of astrology
Astrology is an occult practice of divination of the future, and/or of fortunes whether good or evil, which the Lord God forbade

#2 Astronomy: the science of the celestial bodies and of their magnitudes, motion and constitution
and an "astronomer" is one who is skilled in astronomy, or who makes observations of celestial phenomena
Astronomy is science of natural study of the Sun, the Moon, the Stars, Comets, Nebulae, Dying Stars, and not for divination of peoples futures.
Some famous ancient Astronomers: Pythagoras (570-495 BC); Eratosthenes (276-194 BC); Aristarchus of Samos (circa 230 BC); Hipparchus (190-120 BC); Ptolemy (or Claudius Ptolemais; 100 AD - 170 AD)
My closesst friend for over 50 years is an astrophysisicste is retired now after decades of professorship at a university.

We used to discuss astrophysics at length while I was a student at the same university with him.
The point here is when I use the word, astrology, I use it in the biblical sense. Read about astrologers in the Word.
Astrologers are not running around asking folks their sign or giving credence to the effect of the zodiac on each's entire life. Please read all of the post, perhaps it will make sense to you now. All blessings in understanding always...
 

Moses_Young

Active member
Sep 15, 2019
284
141
43
#87
well, you're going to have to explain a whole lot of well established things like the double slit experiment and the photoelectric effect.
Double slit is easily explained by wave behaviour, is it not? It's a known phenomenum that waves can have physical effects (think of beach waves on a sand dune), so why would an explanation of the photoelectric effect rely on the belief that aether does not exist?

and this is basically why you think there's an aether, because, Tesla?
Well, it seems that's the argument why people don't believe in aether, "because... Einstein." And yet Einstein contributed nothing to science but some useless theories that have held it back nearly a century. Tesla's contributions are still being used today. So, if it was solely a matter of choosing which scientist to believe (it is not, and I use the term "scientist" loosely when applying it to Einstein), it'd be Tesla every time.
 

posthuman

Senior Member
Jul 31, 2013
25,913
7,087
113
#88
Double slit is easily explained by wave behaviour, is it not? It's a known phenomenum that waves can have physical effects (think of beach waves on a sand dune), so why would an explanation of the photoelectric effect rely on the belief that aether does not exist?
the ocean is made of seawater particles.
the photoelectric effect has nothing to do with aether at all - it's light exhibiting particle behavior.
you can fire a single photon at a double slit and it still exhibits wave behavior, interfering with itself.
if you fire electrons at a double-slit they exhibit wave behavior, and if you try to detect the electrons, you get particle behavior.


What you are not realising is that the vacuum chamber stills contains aether.
get a better vacuum chamber.
 

Moses_Young

Active member
Sep 15, 2019
284
141
43
#89
the ocean is made of seawater particles.
the photoelectric effect has nothing to do with aether at all - it's light exhibiting particle behavior.
you can fire a single photon at a double slit and it still exhibits wave behavior, interfering with itself.
But is it the photon interfering with itself, or waves from a disturbance in the aether, interfering with the photon?

if you fire electrons at a double-slit they exhibit wave behavior, and if you try to detect the electrons, you get particle behavior.
Kind of hard to explain without aether, isn't it?

get a better vacuum chamber.
You can't evacuate aether.
 

JamOn

Well-known member
Jun 10, 2019
2,675
1,094
113
#90
Double slit is easily explained by wave behaviour, is it not? It's a known phenomenum that waves can have physical effects (think of beach waves on a sand dune), so why would an explanation of the photoelectric effect rely on the belief that aether does not exist?

Well, it seems that's the argument why people don't believe in aether, "because... Einstein." And yet Einstein contributed nothing to science but some useless theories that have held it back nearly a century. Tesla's contributions are still being used today. So, if it was solely a matter of choosing which scientist to believe (it is not, and I use the term "scientist" loosely when applying it to Einstein), it'd be Tesla every time.
Einstein contributed many things, I’ll name just one E=m2 which is the base formula for nuclear reaction
 

Moses_Young

Active member
Sep 15, 2019
284
141
43
#91
Einstein contributed many things, I’ll name just one E=m2 which is the base formula for nuclear reaction
It is actually E = m.c^2, and its not a new formula, just a re-hash of a formula that was kicking around for decades (E = m.v^2, but c is the velocity of light rather than any velocity, for Einstein's re-hash). The formula provided nothing to the invention of nuclear science, although its probably sold like that to give the naked emperor some street cred, so people buy his lies about relativity.
 

JaumeJ

Senior Member
Jul 2, 2011
16,545
3,367
113
#92
Which one of you will approach the Father as a scientist? This is a Bible discussion forum you know!?
 

JamOn

Well-known member
Jun 10, 2019
2,675
1,094
113
#93
It is actually E = m.c^2, and its not a new formula, just a re-hash of a formula that was kicking around for decades (E = m.v^2, but c is the velocity of light rather than any velocity, for Einstein's re-hash). The formula provided nothing to the invention of nuclear science, although its probably sold like that to give the naked emperor some street cred, so people buy his lies about relativity.
Actually I left out the c E = mc2, thanks for noticing my typo

If Einstein re hash E=mc2 you probably have read something on the matter do you have a link to that information. From what I’ve read yes the idea of a nuclear bomb was around for awhile but it wasn’t until Einstein’s formula E=mc2 that made it theoretically possible
 

posthuman

Senior Member
Jul 31, 2013
25,913
7,087
113
#94
Are you sure that observation of other planets rotating about their own axis can be relative?
what i meant by saying all motion is relative is that you cannot measure motion ((or static position for that matter)) without some reference frame. you have to have some point you call 'zero' or 'fixed' -- some point you observe the position and motion from.
typically we're sitting on the face of the planet and consider it to be our reference frame. we say a car is going 100 km/h and what we mean is that the car is moving at this speed relative to the surface of the earth. it's moving at different rates and in different directions from different observation points / frames of reference.
 

Moses_Young

Active member
Sep 15, 2019
284
141
43
#95
Actually I left out the c E = mc2, thanks for noticing my typo

If Einstein re hash E=mc2 you probably have read something on the matter do you have a link to that information. From what I’ve read yes the idea of a nuclear bomb was around for awhile but it wasn’t until Einstein’s formula E=mc2 that made it theoretically possible
e = mv^2/2 is the formula used for calculating kinetic energy. Einstein simply substituted in the velocity of light (c) for any velocity, v. Einstein's theories had nothing to do with the practicalities of building a bomb. Same as all the scientific theories of the day said flight was impossible to the Wright brothers. Real science had and has little to do with abstract theories.
 

Moses_Young

Active member
Sep 15, 2019
284
141
43
#96
Which one of you will approach the Father as a scientist? This is a Bible discussion forum you know!?
True. The main justification for the Earth being still is that the bible claims it is. And a stationary Earth means the stars are a lot closer, as the orbit diameter of Earth to the sun used to triangulate the distance to the stars drops significantly if Earth is not moving. This resolves the age/distance problem of starlight, and God's word trumps science-so-called once again.
 

JamOn

Well-known member
Jun 10, 2019
2,675
1,094
113
#97
E = m.v^2 was Newton’s formula which has be reconfigured because it was flawed, and kinetic energy is far different than nuclear energy,

e = mv^2/2 is the formula used for calculating kinetic energy. Einstein simply substituted in the velocity of light (c) for any velocity, v. Einstein's theories had nothing to do with the practicalities of building a bomb. Same as all the scientific theories of the day said flight was impossible to the Wright brothers. Real science had and has little to do with abstract theories.
 

JamOn

Well-known member
Jun 10, 2019
2,675
1,094
113
#98
Kinetic energy
D9E990E1-641A-4B9A-8F34-ADC7CF4BE21B.gif

Nuclear fusion energy
 

Moses_Young

Active member
Sep 15, 2019
284
141
43
#99
E = m.v^2 was Newton’s formula which has be reconfigured because it was flawed, and kinetic energy is far different than nuclear energy,
And Einstein's formula has nothing to do with it. :)
 

UnoiAmarah

Junior Member
Jul 28, 2017
199
42
28
You do understand that those images are not actual photographic images taken by the Hubble telescope but rather are what are called 'False color images', 'Composition images' 'Artistic impressions" and amongst other terms used to describe images which filter the electromagnetic wavelengths outside the wavelength of visible light so that which cannot be seen by the human eye is made visible.

This one is they call Messner 75 which is some 68,000 light years from earth.