Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Genesis only mentions 1 sun.Or.....read without preconception.... Without imposing ideas onto the text. Let it speak, without being decided you already know what it will say. And then like good poetry, it will begin to communicate on a subtle level, like poetry does.
Genesis only mentions 1 sun.
I had thought that was considered unlikely since astronomers have searched hard to find a nearby star to be a candidate, and haven't found one. Perhaps a brown dwarf or very small red dwarf? Even just 50 Jupiter masses would be plenty enough to cause havoc in the Kuiper belts if in the plane, sending comets sunward.
Indeed. The total and complete lack of evidence for the theory is a tiny bit of a problem.
These guys argue that any companion has a mass of at most 44 times Jupiter (0.042 times that of the Sun itself). More recent work basically rules out a companion altogether.
Timing makes a lot of difference concerning the issue, as more recent studies (for those saying there's no evidence of a binary sun TODAY) have shown that our sun did have one at its beginning. This has been noted in other places as well, despite claims of their being no evidence. This is from June of this year:I had thought that was considered unlikely since astronomers have searched hard to find a nearby star to be a candidate, and haven't found one. Perhaps a brown dwarf or very small red dwarf? Even just 50 Jupiter masses would be plenty enough to cause havoc in the Kuiper belts if in the plane, sending comets sunward..
Timing makes a lot of difference concerning the issue, as more recent studies (for those saying there's no evidence of a binary sun TODAY) have shown that our sun did have one at its beginning. This has been noted in other places as well, despite claims of their being no evidence. This is from June of this year:
- Sun Likely Has a Long-Lost Twin - Space.com
A radio image of a triple-star system forming within a dusty disk in the Perseus molecular cloud obtained by the Atacama Large Millimeter/submillimeter Array in Chile.
Credit: Bill Saxton, ALMA (ESO/NAOJ/NRAO), NRAO/AUI/NSF
Nemesis is apparently real, even if its bad reputation is undeserved.
For decades, some scientists have speculated that the sun has a companion whose gravitational tug periodically jostles comets out of their normal orbits, sending them careening toward Earth. The resulting impacts have caused mass extinctions, the thinking goes, which explains the putative star's nickname: Nemesis.
Now, a new study reports that almost all sun-like stars are likely born with companions, bolstering the case for the existence of Nemesis. [Solar Quiz: How Well Do You Know the Sun?]
"We are saying, yes, there probably was a Nemesis, a long time ago," study co-author Steven Stahler, a research astronomer at the University of California, Berkeley, said in a statement. But the new results don't paint Nemesis as a murderer: The sibling star probably broke free of the sun and melted into the Milky Way galaxy's stellar population billions of years ago, study team members said.
May wish to consider this since this goes into more detail on the origins of our solar system, from Did our sun have a twin? | Space | EarthSky :but if you wanted to see my own view about whether our sun is binary, read closer up the thread to the OP, which is to the effect of possible-but-unlikely-and-here's-why, etc.
Right. I'd forgotten that. There are constantly new hypotheses in astrophysics, hundreds per year, and sometimes they even get found again later, the current researchers being unaware it had been done before. The thing about red dwarf stars turning out to be very bad hosts for life as we know it is a good example. This was already written on before the recent excitement about the 7 "Earth like" planets near the red dwarf Trappist 1, and then after a few months new sets of researchers reached the same conclusions I had read already and this time still remembered. It was amusing, and not a bad thing, really. One result even showed it was not only unlikely for an Earth like planet near Trappist 1, but drastically unlikely.
Day and night for the Earth is understandable. But why all the sunrises ad sunsets on worlds where nobody is there to see them?Interesting when reading on Genesis and seeing that even with God making the moon and the Sun, the other aspects of how the moon operates are not necessarily spelled out in Genesis.
A lot of folks were thinking this in-depth when considering how the recent Solar Eclipse came about
Day and night for the Earth is understandable. But why all the sunrises ad sunsets on worlds where nobody is there to see them?
The real question for a theist is why would a creator place such a disruptive star in that sensitive vicinity to our Earth.
Extinction events/periodic massive volcanic activity seem to hint at the possibility.
Massive volcanism has been linked to large impacts by asteroids or comets as obviously, the massive kinetic energy of a large impact has to go somewhere and this kinetic energy is always converted into heat that is transferred to the atmosphere, the ground, and finally, to the Earth's interior.
This makes large impacts twice as deadly, from the intial destruction and eventually, causing massive geological activity worldwide from large earthquakes, accelerated continental drift, and creation and explosion of supervolcanoes.
Extinction events/periodic massive volcanic activity seem to hint at the possibility.
Massive volcanism has been linked to large impacts by asteroids or comets as obviously, the massive kinetic energy of a large impact has to go somewhere and this kinetic energy is always converted into heat that is transferred to the atmosphere, the ground, and finally, to the Earth's interior.
This makes large impacts twice as deadly, from the intial destruction and eventually, causing massive geological activity worldwide from large earthquakes, accelerated continental drift, and creation and explosion of supervolcanoes.
That sounds like a rather clumsy, roundabout, inefficient way to go about things and doesn't harmonize at all with the calm pronouncements followed by creations described in Genesis. It also comes across as callously ignoring the sufferings that such events caused his creatures and the worry that it engenders in human minds. Not at all reassuring behavior but one that seems more likely motivated with the aim to intimidate and force obedience via fostering a servile fear.
Anthropically selected, even.Right, impacts would increase volcanic activity. It's interesting that after the big impact 66 million years ago, the volcanoes finished off most dinosaurs.
And that, their conversion into compost, is what allowed the rise of mammals, and cleared and prepared the way for us!
A perfect impact of just the right size....not too little, and not too big.
Too little, and dinos survive and compete with mammals.
Utahraptors, more dangerous than velociraptors, hunted in packs likely, and would be worse than wolves by far.
Utahraptors
Too big, and mammals die out too.
Instead, it was just exactly, perfectly right.
Selected it would seem.
Just so. Here we are. The impacts neither prove nor disprove anything about God, which is what I'm pointing at, from earlier in the discussion, where someone suggested the impacts point to the Bible being wrong. I'm merely pointing out how that conclusion does not follow, see? (That idea they contradict the Bible, such as God being a bad shepherd of us for instance, isn't correct, in that the text is fully compatible with major extinction impacts; e.g. -- it's just as reasonable to see the impacts as merely His preparing our home world for us.)Anthropically selected, even.
But if God is all-powerful, could he not create a world that was already prepared for us and did not need to be prepared through devastation and destruction?Just so. Here we are. The impacts neither prove nor disprove anything about God, which is what I'm pointing at, from earlier in the discussion, where someone suggested the impacts point to the Bible being wrong. I'm merely pointing out how that conclusion does not follow, see? (That idea they contradict the Bible, such as God being a bad shepherd of us for instance, isn't correct, in that the text is fully compatible with major extinction impacts; e.g. -- it's just as reasonable to see the impacts as merely His preparing our home world for us.)
But if God is all-powerful, could he not create a world that was already prepared for us and did not need to be prepared through devastation and destruction?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?