Universal Laws of Heavenly Bodies

[LightningClap0002]

Another miracle involving the sun:

(Isaiah 38:8) Behold, I will bring again the shadow of the degrees, which is gone down in the sun dial of Ahaz, ten degrees backward. So the sun returned ten degrees, by which degrees it was gone down.

So do we need to again change this to say the Earth spun the other way instead of what God tells us happened?

S-love, I'm not sure that I understand your biblical arguments. Do you have reason to believe that these men were highly interested in the laws that governed nature? Is your argument that God provided special scientific insight to the writers of those books? Do you think that Hezekiah would have considered it to be a different sign if he felt the earth suddenly rotate?

Also notice that this verse is referring to the shadow (ie angle of the light), so what makes you think that this passage disallows revolution of the sun? The angle can be changed by moving the sun, or by moving the earth...

In response to your question. No, we do not need to change that passage in any way.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

Grandpa, they use more than light these days (e.g. cosmic radio waves) to determine and verify measurements; however, Wikipedia has a good introduction to the cosmic distance ladder (also known as the Extragalactic Distance Scale) as of the date and time of this post which is the succession of methods by which astronomers determine the distances to celestial objects at:

Cosmic distance ladder - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

Yes that way more people are deceived into believing the sun, moon, and planets revolve around the earth and not the other way around. Exactly what any troll would want.

Thank you for humbling yourself and continuing to have an open mind Chingy.

God bless you Sir.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

I mean the deceived into believing the sun and planets revolve around the earth instead of the sun. Obviously the moon revolves around the earth. I'm multitasking on several posts at the same time so forgive the typo and consider it corrected.

 

[LightningClap0002]

I mean the deceived into believing the sun and planets revolve around the earth instead of the sun. Obviously the moon revolves around the earth. I'm multitasking on several posts at the same time so forgive the typo and consider it corrected.

I also need to make a correction... I meant to say

" so what makes you think that this passage disallows revolution of the earth?"

 

[Strangelove]

S-love, I'm not sure that I understand your biblical arguments. Do you have reason to believe that these men were highly interested in the laws that governed nature?

What men?

God inspired these scriptures. God is highly interested in everything including laws of nature.

Is your argument that God provided special scientific insight to the writers of those books?

No my argument is that God inspired the scriptures which are true down to the word.

Do you think that Hezekiah would have considered it to be a different sign if he felt the earth suddenly rotate?

I dont care waht Hezekiah considered. Scripoture says the sun went back.

Also notice that this verse is referring to the shadow (ie angle of the light), so what makes you think that this passage disallows revolution of the sun?

Erm...no....it says the sun returned ten degrees.

Thats why the shadow went back, because the sun did.

The angle can be changed by moving the sun, or by moving the earth...

Thats true but scripture says it was the moving sun.

In response to your question. No, we do not need to change that passage in any way.

Except your putting forward the idea that the earth moved. Scripture says the sun did.

 

[LightningClap0002]

What men?

God inspired these scriptures. God is highly interested in everything including laws of nature.



No my argument is that God inspired the scriptures which are true down to the word.




I dont care waht Hezekiah considered. Scripoture says the sun went back.



Erm...no....it says the sun returned ten degrees.

Thats why the shadow went back, because the sun did.



Thats true but scripture says it was the moving sun.



Except your putting forward the idea that the earth moved. Scripture says the sun did.

How did Hezekiah (or anyone at the time) measure the angle of the Sun?

 

[Strangelove]

Grandpa, they use more than light these days (e.g. cosmic radio waves) to determine and verify measurements; however, Wikipedia has a good introduction to the cosmic distance ladder (also known as the Extragalactic Distance Scale) as of the date and time of this post which is the succession of methods by which astronomers determine the distances to celestial objects at:

Cosmic distance ladder - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hypothetical hornswaggle.

Radio waves my foot.

What happened to trigonometry? You giving up on that? lolz.

After all your source says:

"The most important fundamental distance measurements come from trigonometric parallax. "

So this radio waves thingee is obviously built on that method.

So are you gonna tell us where they get their baseline from tuffguy?

 

[Strangelove]

How did Hezekiah (or anyone at the time) measure the angle of the Sun?

With a sun dial obviously.

 

[Strangelove]

Yes that way more people are deceived into believing the sun, moon, and planets revolve around the earth and not the other way around. Exactly what any troll would want.

Your a troll.

A Rothschild paid government enforcer troll. But please stay and keep talking, I'm gonna destroy you here just like on all the other threads.

Still waiting for you over here by the way:

LINK ::: Noahide laws and FEMA camps

 

[JohnChingford2007]

Hi Grandpa

I have done the same thing as you and come up with exactly the same conclusion as you. Different experiments always assume that the calculations of others were correct in arriving at their own conclusions. However, when you look at how each "expert" arose at their conclusion they do the same as everybody else, ie use assumptions about a specific value.

Here is a link which is an example:

Measuring the speed of light

They have calculated the speed of light on the assumption that they know the distance from Earth to Jupiter. I would agree that we could calculate the speed of light re their experiment IF we knew the distance to Jupiter. How can we know the distance or size of Jupiter or how can we know the speed of its moon's orbit if we do not have other criteria? Some would calculate the distance using the "apparent known" speed of light. It all seems like one massive conspiracy. I will use an example a+b=2. We cannot know the exact value of "b" IF we do not know the value of "a". We need at least 2 precise values before we can calculate the missing value. Even in simultaneous equations, we need at least one starting value eg 2a+3b =13, 5a-1b=7 , the 13 and 7 being the starting points.

I cannot see how they can calculate these things without using someone else's assumed value or starting point.

Musk, please let me know how that link above fits into the calculations you showed.

ie "Speed of light = 186,282 miles per second
Time a form of describing a distance between today and tomorrow or passage of time which is only relevant in this plane of etherial existence anyway I.E. 1 day = 1 revolution of the planet on its axis 1 year = how long it takes for the earth to orbit the Sun
The day is divided into 24 equal parts each = 1 hour and so on
Since we have calculated the speed of light and because we can observe Solar flares through telescopes etc. and can corroberate our observations with unmanned craft sent towards the sun in recent years we can ascertain an exact distance within 4 parts per billion of accuracy by calculating the moment of the flare and how long it takes for the disturbance of that flare to reach the earth from the sun
The mean distance of our planet from our sun if we use miles instead of kilometers is 92,955,807.3 miles
divide that sum by the time it takes for a beam of light to come from the sun to earth (Aprrox. 8 minutes) and you get the above stated figure of the speed of light.
Knowing this you can calculate the distance of any cellestial body with the very same formula"

The first calculation required a starting value of speed of light which is ASSUMED. The second calculation uses distance as the starting point which was formed by the first calculation. You cannot calculate one or the other without knowing one of its values. The link above shows that their starting point was also based on an assumption ie that we knew the size and orbit speed of Jupiter.


Hey Guys. I wrote this post on the previous page (so copy it again here so you can see it). I am keen to see your replies to my findings. Thanks

 

[Strangelove]

I also need to make a correction... I meant to say

" so what makes you think that this passage disallows revolution of the earth?"

Because the passage says the sun moved not the Earth.

 

[Strangelove]

I mean the deceived into believing the sun and planets revolve around the earth instead of the sun. Obviously the moon revolves around the earth. I'm multitasking on several posts at the same time so forgive the typo and consider it corrected.

Which direction does the moon revolve around the earth?

 

[JohnChingford2007]

Your a troll.

A Rothschild paid government enforcer troll. But please stay and keep talking, I'm gonna destroy you here just like on all the other threads.

Still waiting for you over here by the way:

LINK ::: Noahide laws and FEMA camps

Hey steady on Doc. Is that "let your speech be gracious, seasoned with salt, so that you know how to answer everybody" was your comment used with salt ie I'm gonna destroy you"

 

[Strangelove]

Hey steady on Doc. Is that "let your speech be gracious, seasoned with salt, so that you know how to answer everybody" was your comment used with salt ie I'm gonna destroy you"

It's for his own good.

 

[LightningClap0002]

Because the passage says the sun moved not the Earth.

Yes, I have read the passage several times. My point is that the "true" angle of the sun is unknown to these people. To them the angle of the sun is the angle of shadow cast by the sun. Saying that sun moved x degrees means nothing apart from a sun dial (which is why it is important and explicitly called out in the previous verse).

So, again... either God provided explicit scientific knowledge to these people, or they were simply stating that the angle on the sundial went back 10 degrees, not that the sun physically moved by 10 degrees.

Furthermore, this was a case of divine intervention. Perhaps day-to-day the earth rotated, and on this special occasion God decided to rotate the sun around the earth. Heck, I don't know how you turn back time, or change the motions of any heavenly body. Do you? There are clearly some natural laws at work in our natural world; when the supernatural "spills" into our world, how can you claim that the supernatural event is "playing by the rules"? It's supernatural!

As for your belief that the Bible is inspired by God, Jesus himself demonstrated that it is often necessary to describe the supernatural in natural terms to help guide people.

 

[mememe]

 

[Muskokaman]

Hi Grandpa

I have done the same thing as you and come up with exactly the same conclusion as you. Different experiments always assume that the calculations of others were correct in arriving at their own conclusions. However, when you look at how each "expert" arose at their conclusion they do the same as everybody else, ie use assumptions about a specific value.

Here is a link which is an example:

Measuring the speed of light

They have calculated the speed of light on the assumption that they know the distance from Earth to Jupiter. I would agree that we could calculate the speed of light re their experiment IF we knew the distance to Jupiter. How can we know the distance or size of Jupiter or how can we know the speed of its moon's orbit if we do not have other criteria? Some would calculate the distance using the "apparent known" speed of light. It all seems like one massive conspiracy. I will use an example a+b=2. We cannot know the exact value of "b" IF we do not know the value of "a". We need at least 2 precise values before we can calculate the missing value. Even in simultaneous equations, we need at least one starting value eg 2a+3b =13, 5a-1b=7 , the 13 and 7 being the starting points.

I cannot see how they can calculate these things without using someone else's assumed value or starting point.

Musk, please let me know how that link above fits into the calculations you showed.

ie "Speed of light = 186,282 miles per second
Time a form of describing a distance between today and tomorrow or passage of time which is only relevant in this plane of etherial existence anyway I.E. 1 day = 1 revolution of the planet on its axis 1 year = how long it takes for the earth to orbit the Sun
The day is divided into 24 equal parts each = 1 hour and so on
Since we have calculated the speed of light and because we can observe Solar flares through telescopes etc. and can corroberate our observations with unmanned craft sent towards the sun in recent years we can ascertain an exact distance within 4 parts per billion of accuracy by calculating the moment of the flare and how long it takes for the disturbance of that flare to reach the earth from the sun
The mean distance of our planet from our sun if we use miles instead of kilometers is 92,955,807.3 miles
divide that sum by the time it takes for a beam of light to come from the sun to earth (Aprrox. 8 minutes) and you get the above stated figure of the speed of light.
Knowing this you can calculate the distance of any cellestial body with the very same formula"

The first calculation required a starting value of speed of light which is ASSUMED. The second calculation uses distance as the starting point which was formed by the first calculation. You cannot calculate one or the other without knowing one of its values. The link above shows that their starting point was also based on an assumption ie that we knew the size and orbit speed of Jupiter.


Hey Guys. I wrote this post on the previous page (so copy it again here so you can see it). I am keen to see your replies to my findings. Thanks

I don't know where you get your data from John but the speed of light has been calculated here on earth and there are NO ASSUMPTIONS when it comes to any of the criteria used for calculation. If you scroll up the literature I copy&pasted from wikipedia it gives a general overview of the dynamics behind the calculations BTW they have high speed cameras now that can take an astounding 650,000 frames per second and you can actually see the beam of light travel across the room in the Experiments that were done at CAL TECH in 2006 I will see if I can find the literature but I am a bit of a dope when it comes to embedding links in threads and stuff.

 

[Muskokaman]

Hi Grandpa

I have done the same thing as you and come up with exactly the same conclusion as you. Different experiments always assume that the calculations of others were correct in arriving at their own conclusions. However, when you look at how each "expert" arose at their conclusion they do the same as everybody else, ie use assumptions about a specific value.

Here is a link which is an example:

Measuring the speed of light

You only won in your own mind bud
A legend in your own mind



They have calculated the speed of light on the assumption that they know the distance from Earth to Jupiter. I would agree that we could calculate the speed of light re their experiment IF we knew the distance to Jupiter. How can we know the distance or size of Jupiter or how can we know the speed of its moon's orbit if we do not have other criteria? Some would calculate the distance using the "apparent known" speed of light. It all seems like one massive conspiracy. I will use an example a+b=2. We cannot know the exact value of "b" IF we do not know the value of "a". We need at least 2 precise values before we can calculate the missing value. Even in simultaneous equations, we need at least one starting value eg 2a+3b =13, 5a-1b=7 , the 13 and 7 being the starting points.

I cannot see how they can calculate these things without using someone else's assumed value or starting point.

Musk, please let me know how that link above fits into the calculations you showed.

ie "Speed of light = 186,282 miles per second
Time a form of describing a distance between today and tomorrow or passage of time which is only relevant in this plane of etherial existence anyway I.E. 1 day = 1 revolution of the planet on its axis 1 year = how long it takes for the earth to orbit the Sun
The day is divided into 24 equal parts each = 1 hour and so on
Since we have calculated the speed of light and because we can observe Solar flares through telescopes etc. and can corroberate our observations with unmanned craft sent towards the sun in recent years we can ascertain an exact distance within 4 parts per billion of accuracy by calculating the moment of the flare and how long it takes for the disturbance of that flare to reach the earth from the sun
The mean distance of our planet from our sun if we use miles instead of kilometers is 92,955,807.3 miles
divide that sum by the time it takes for a beam of light to come from the sun to earth (Aprrox. 8 minutes) and you get the above stated figure of the speed of light.
Knowing this you can calculate the distance of any cellestial body with the very same formula"

The first calculation required a starting value of speed of light which is ASSUMED. The second calculation uses distance as the starting point which was formed by the first calculation. You cannot calculate one or the other without knowing one of its values. The link above shows that their starting point was also based on an assumption ie that we knew the size and orbit speed of Jupiter.


Hey Guys. I wrote this post on the previous page (so copy it again here so you can see it). I am keen to see your replies to my findings. Thanks

Lolz...

Whats....the.....baseline of the trigonometry that you use to measure star distances.

You are gonna make a real fool of yourself if you continue to be arrogant. this aint my first dance on this topic and I've come up against people FAR more qualified than you....and won.

You only won in your own mind Doc.
Your argument is boorish unsubstantiated and foolhearty. BTW your quick quips of word play may work on the weak minded but not on me!

 

[JohnChingford2007]

I don't know where you get your data from John but the speed of light has been calculated here on earth and there are NO ASSUMPTIONS when it comes to any of the criteria used for calculation.

The speed of light has been calculated based on the "said" distance between two planets. YOU CANNOT calculate the speed of light if you do not know the distance between two planets. How do they calculate the distance, they use the speed of light. Every internet page I have looked up comes up with similar type of data., It is circular reasoning.