God never said how big the created stars were..?

[dad]

Did He? I don't recall anywhere where the bible in any way says how big the stars are. Science believes they are sun like in size, many of them, and much bigger.

I was reading an article on how galaxies seem to behave like subatomic particles...I guess for all we know, the far stars (beyond the visible ones) might BE tiny!

I notice one star in the bible guided people to a certain neighborhood and house. That star was not real big.

The reasons science assigns sizes to stars is because of the distances they think they are. Right? Ha

 

[exitstageright]

Did He? I don't recall anywhere where the bible in any way says how big the stars are. Science believes they are sun like in size, many of them, and much bigger.

I was reading an article on how galaxies seem to behave like subatomic particles...I guess for all we know, the far stars (beyond the visible ones) might BE tiny!

I notice one star in the bible guided people to a certain neighborhood and house. That star was not real big.

The reasons science assigns sizes to stars is because of the distances they think they are. Right? Ha

As I told one fellow scientist , when I was working at Stanford Medical Center in Palo Alto, California. "The bible is not a science book. The bible is a faith book."
By the way,some of the stars,that we see at night,are no longer in existence. Because,they are so far away,that it has taken light such a long time to reach the earth. Fascinating, is it not? Light travels at 186,000 miles per second.The moon is 240,000 miles away from earth.Therefore, we see our moon as it was a second ago. The sun is 93,000,000 miles away from the earth. Therefore,we see our sun as it was 8 minutes ago. Becuase,that is how long,at 186,000 miles per second,that it takes for the light of our sun to get to earth.

 

[dad]

As I told one fellow scientist , when I was working at Stanford Medical Center in Palo Alto, California. "The bible is not a science book. The bible is a faith book."
By the way,some of the stars,that we see at night,are no longer in existence. Because,they are so far away,that it has taken light such a long time to reach the earth. Fascinating, is it not? Light travels at 186,000 miles per second.The moon is 240,000 miles away from earth.Therefore, we see our moon as it was a second ago. The sun is 93,000,000 miles away from the earth. Therefore,we see our sun as it was 8 minutes ago. Becuase,that is how long,at 186,000 miles per second,that it takes for the light of our sun to get to earth.

I understand the theory.

However, we cannot measure what light does or time for that matter, (how much time light takes to move) in the far universe by how they behave/exist here near earth and the solar system.

That means that we do not know how far in the past (what distance) anything far away really is. In fact, if time were not the same as we know it, we could be looking at the present or future for all we know, rather than the past.

If you dispute this then show us how you clock light moving many light years away at 186,000 MPS?

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

I understand the theory.

However, we cannot measure what light does or time for that matter, (how much time light takes to move) in the far universe by how they behave/exist here near earth and the solar system.

That means that we do not know how far in the past (what distance) anything far away really is. In fact, if time were not the same as we know it, we could be looking at the present or future for all we know, rather than the past.

If you dispute this then show us how you clock light moving many light years away at 186,000 MPS?

We have all the reasons to know time everywhere else is the same as it is here because of the reasons @exitstageright laid out. Now, it's up to YOU to show it to be different, especially since all of the evidence shows our ability to predict and model how everything out there acts as successfully as we do means you have a near impossible uphill battle on that front. We don't have to disprove your nonsense unfounded assertions about it being different, so on ya bike, mate!

 

[exitstageright]

I understand the theory.

However, we cannot measure what light does or time for that matter, (how much time light takes to move) in the far universe by how they behave/exist here near earth and the solar system.

That means that we do not know how far in the past (what distance) anything far away really is. In fact, if time were not the same as we know it, we could be looking at the present or future for all we know, rather than the past.

If you dispute this then show us how you clock light moving many light years away at 186,000 MPS?

The speed of light in a vacuum stands at “exactly 299,792,458 metres per second“. The reason today we can put an exact figure on it is because the speed of light in a vacuum is a universal constant that has been measured with lasers; and when an experiment involves lasers, it’s hard to argue with the results.

 

[dad]

We have all the reasons to know time everywhere else is the same as it is here because of the reasons @exitstageright laid out.

Oh? So what are those reasons? Or should we just believe by faith here as is par for the course for your religion.

Now, it's up to YOU to show it to be different,

I do not need to show the past nature or time in the unknown far universe to be anything at all. You need to if you want to base models on the claim.

I can relax and believe God's word, thanks.

especially since all of the evidence shows our ability to predict and model how everything out there acts as successfully as we do means you have a near impossible uphill battle on that front

Your so called evidence ignores predictions that failed and seeks to claim credit for what we see to some godless religion. You have failed to show any evidence whatsoever that time is the same all over the universe and indeed have failed to even address the issue in any meaningful way.

. We don't have to disprove your nonsense unfounded assertions about it being different, so on ya bike, mate!

You can't. So what you are saying is that is some excuse not to have to prove the stuff you claim. Gong.

 

[dad]

The speed of light in a vacuum stands at “exactly 299,792,458 metres per second“. The reason today we can put an exact figure on it is because the speed of light in a vacuum is a universal constant that has been measured with lasers; and when an experiment involves lasers, it’s hard to argue with the results.

Wrong. You really thought man shot lasers to the stars??? Ha. The speed of light here is not important or relevant. Any vacuum you checked was, for your information, here in the area of the solar system.

 

[Doctor.Sphinx]

Did He? I don't recall anywhere where the bible in any way says how big the stars are. Science believes they are sun like in size, many of them, and much bigger.

I was reading an article on how galaxies seem to behave like subatomic particles...I guess for all we know, the far stars (beyond the visible ones) might BE tiny!

I notice one star in the bible guided people to a certain neighborhood and house. That star was not real big.

The reasons science assigns sizes to stars is because of the distances they think they are. Right? Ha

I do often get the impression from the bible that the stars are angels, or at least living beings. But that would also imply the sun and moon are, which is harder to accept.

Job 38:7 [KJV] When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

I definitely think the stars are a lot closer and a lot smaller than heliocentrism preaches (and only heliocentrism requires them to be so far away, as their relative positions to one another do not change - as if they were within a shell or firmament surrounding the Earth).

 

[AirPo]

We have all the reasons to know time everywhere else is the same as it is here because of the reasons @exitstageright laid out. Now, it's up to YOU to show it to be different, especially since all of the evidence shows our ability to predict and model how everything out there acts as successfully as we do means you have a near impossible uphill battle on that front. We don't have to disprove your nonsense unfounded assertions about it being different, so on ya bike, mate!

Reasons? There are no reasons in the HI Theory. You just make things up.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Wrong. You really thought man shot lasers to the stars??? Ha. The speed of light here is not important or relevant. Any vacuum you checked was, for your information, here in the area of the solar system.

Not to mention that if you do that experiment today, you get result X...
But who's to say what result you would have gotten Last Thursday?????

 

[Astrophile]

I was reading an article on how galaxies seem to behave like subatomic particles...I guess for all we know, the far stars (beyond the visible ones) might BE tiny!

Not if our understanding of stellar structure is at all accurate. Main-sequence stars consist of a perfect gas; for them to be stable against collapse under their own gravitation they have to be supported by thermal pressure; that is, their interiors have to be hot. For the core of a star to be hot enough to generate energy by fusing hydrogen into helium (T > 10 million Kelvin), it has to be at least 0.085 times the mass of the Sun, or 28,000 times the mass of the Earth (90 times Jupiter's mass). This well-established theory shows that stars cannot be tiny objects.

If you think that this theory is wrong, you have to offer an alternative explanation of why stars shine.

 

[essentialsaltes]

I notice one star in the bible guided people to a certain neighborhood and house. That star was not real big.

How big does the bible say that star was?

 

[AirPo]

How big does the bible say that star was?

How do we know it was a star and not a planet? Planets are small compared to stars, so that fits. And it could have been Venus. That's supported by The Da Vinci Code.

 

[Doctor.Sphinx]

How do we know it was a star and not a planet? Planets are small compared to stars, so that fits. And it could have been Venus. That's supported by The Da Vinci Code.

Call me unbeliever, but I somehow doubt that Venus left its orbit to stand over a house, without anyone noticing and recording that it was Venus.

 

[dad]

I do often get the impression from the bible that the stars are angels, or at least living beings. But that would also imply the sun and moon are, which is harder to accept.

It talks about ow He made the sun and moon, then mentions he also made the stars. So they are not the same. Even within the stars, not all are the same glory. I suppose if some far away stars actually were subatomic in size they might have less glory

Job 38:7 [KJV] When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

I definitely think the stars are a lot closer and a lot smaller than heliocentrism preaches (and only heliocentrism requires them to be so far away, as their relative positions to one another do not change - as if they were within a shell or firmament surrounding the Earth).

You could be right, for all we know they could be a lot closer and smaller.

 

[dad]

How big does the bible say that star was?

It doesn't say. Many nations on earth have no record of any star, so some people deduce that it was lower in the sky and only visible so many hundreds or thousands of miles away.

My opinion is that it was that mobile sapphire throne of God (mentioned in Eze) that most people refer to as a flying saucer. I believe the Father was there watching over the birth of His son, like any good dad.

God has wheels (flying). Cool ones, that pre date the universe itself.

 

[essentialsaltes]

It doesn't say.

Correct. That's why it was confusing when you said 'I don't recall anywhere where the bible in any way says how big the stars are.' and then declared that a particular star in the bible was small.

 

[AirPo]

Correct. That's why it was confusing when you said 'I don't recall anywhere where the bible in any way says how big the stars are.' and then declared that a particular star in the bible was small.

It's the HI Theory. It's easy tomake things up.

 

[dad]

Correct. That's why it was confusing when you said 'I don't recall anywhere where the bible in any way says how big the stars are.' and then declared that a particular star in the bible was small.

The star had to be small to guide people to a house. It was not some sun sized object hovering over Israel.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Oh? So what are those reasons? Or should we just believe by faith here as is par for the course for your religion.

All the scientific theories including Einsteins theories of General and Special Relativity and all the predictions and models based off them that provide useful and predictive results.

I do not need to show the past nature or time in the unknown far universe to be anything at all. You need to if you want to base models on the claim.

Those aforementioned theories work out there just like they do here, so that's all the evidence required, even if the burden of proof is still all yours. Now you have a two-fold onus to demonstrate your vacuous claims.

I can relax and believe God's word, thanks.

Of course you can, it's a free world. You're wrong though, that's why your education system doesn't teach it as bonafide science, because it has no scientific value.

Your so called evidence ignores predictions that failed and seeks to claim credit for what we see to some godless religion. You have failed to show any evidence whatsoever that time is the same all over the universe and indeed have failed to even address the issue in any meaningful way.

Except all the observations that match all the predictions we've made, you seem to overlook that universe worth of evidence...

You can't. So what you are saying is that is some excuse not to have to prove the stuff you claim. Gong.

Nope, it's already been demonstrated, so not only can i, but I already have demonstrated a consistency of time across the universe. You're just refusing to acknowledge the evidence your alleged God left behind in his creation.