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.
Perhaps it makes them feel more comfortable with rejecting science's conclusions if they can convince themselves they have an 'alternative' scientific explanation - much as the Whitehouse feels more comfortable calling falsehoods 'alternative truths'.I don't understand why believers who reject science's conclusions then go on to try to make the Bible sound scientific? Does this reflect a subconscious NEED for the Bible to be rationally explained so that they can trust it? Why does it even matter?
Perhaps it makes them feel more comfortable with rejecting science's conclusions if they can convince themselves they have an 'alternative' scientific explanation - much as the Whitehouse feels more comfortable calling falsehoods 'alternative truths'.
Maybe they realise that science is an acknowledged route to knowledge and want to be able to claim scientific validity to persuade waverers - and, perhaps, reinforce their own belief?But why do they need and alternate 'scientific' explanation? Why not just be honest and say, 'I don't care what science says. The Bible says otherwise.'
It's more like an open question. Consider the mainstream astronomy viewpoint (I think still much like this 2010 article, and I'll list a more recent article just after):
Is our Sun part of a binary star system? An unseen companion star, nicknamed 'Nemesis,' may be sending comets towards Earth. If Nemesis exists, NASA's new WISE telescope should be able to spot it.
A dark object may be lurking near our solar system, occasionally kicking comets in our direction.
Nicknamed “Nemesis” or “The Death Star,” this undetected object could be a red or brown dwarf star, or an even darker presence several times the mass of Jupiter.
Why do scientists think something could be hidden beyond the edge of our solar system? Originally, Nemesis was suggested as a way to explain a cycle of mass extinctions on Earth.
The paleontologists David Raup and Jack Sepkoski claim that, over the last 250 million years, life on Earth has faced extinction in a 26-million-year cycle. Astronomers proposed comet impacts as a possible cause for these catastrophes.
Our solar system is surrounded by a vast collection of icy bodies called the Oort Cloud. If our Sun were part of a binary system in which two gravitationally-bound stars orbit a common center of mass, this interaction could disturb the Oort Cloud on a periodic basis, sending comets whizzing towards us.
An asteroid impact is famously responsible for the extinction of the dinosaurs 65 million years ago, but large comet impacts may be equally deadly. A comet may have been the cause of the Tunguska event in Russia in 1908. That explosion had about a thousand times the power of the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima, and it flattened an estimated 80 million trees over an 830 square mile area.
While there’s little doubt about the destructive power of cosmic impacts, there is no evidence that comets have periodically caused mass extinctions on our planet. The theory of periodic extinctions itself is still debated, with many insisting that more proof is needed. Even if the scientific consensus is that extinction events don’t occur in a predictable cycle, there are now other reasons to suspect a dark companion to the Sun.
...(continues)
Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2010-03-wise-nemesis.html#jCp
But, see, it's not been discovered yet, and astronomers have been searching a while, using mathematical predictions even on where to look, and so....such a distruptor of the Oort cloud, 'Nemesis', may or may not be still around, but if it is still around, it's relatively dark/small.
Nemesis Star Theory: The Sun's 'Death Star' Companion
In order to avoid significantly affecting the orbit of the planets, as well as to avoid observation, Nemesis must remain at a distance from the sun. But astronomers argue that such an orbit would be inherently unstable. Traveling so far out, Nemesis would be affected by other stars moving through the galaxy. The resulting orbit would not provide a steady kick to the Oort cloud but would be constantly changing.
In 2017, a new study suggested that nearly all stars like the sun were born with companions. The astronomers did detailed studies of young stars in the Perseus molecular cloud and backed up their work with modeling. But "Nemesis," if it did indeed exist at that time, broke free of the sun early in its history and moved into the rest of the Milky Way's population, the astronomers said.
Show me any galaxy with these billions of stars in the arms that are lighting it up???? Every one you show me will be lit up by ONLY the central star.....Not sure what you're trying to say here. My comment was that a binary star system will be smaller than a whole galaxy. Are you disagreeing?
And hence the misconception that the lesser light that ruled the night was the moon, when in fact it had nothing to do with the moon....Glad for the review and when seeing things like this from other scientists, it really sounds foolish the moment others say that folks discussing it "don't love science" - other scientists in prominent places have already said our solar system once had two suns and that's a basic.
Show me any galaxy with these billions of stars in the arms that are lighting it up???? Every one you show me will be lit up by ONLY the central star.....
I’m convinced astronomers don’t really understand what they call a galaxy at all.... nor a solar system.....
Oh I agree they have inaccurately mapped the distances to objects in what they call our galaxy.....Our own galaxy is this way: with just your eyes on a clear dark night in a dark area you can see about 2,500 stars (about half of all the naked eye visible stars at one time). As you use a telescope you see more. As your telescope gets bigger, you see even more. As the telescope gets huge, even more.
At about 23 seconds into this video, you see the technique currently being used to map these stars in surveying, into a huge map of the sky:
Actually assembling a huge number of photos together, over time.
You don't have to have a viewpoint of what a galaxy is in order to systematically photograph the entire sky and put it together into a map:
I wondered about and investigated negative parallax. I've always been competent at math and logic and noticing details and noticing errors and contradictions, and I wanted to know precisely how there can be 'negative parallax'.. Ask yourself why 25% of all relative parallax measurements are negative?
Given the poor understanding of science demonstrated in your earlier posts, from the fundamentals of geometry to the principles of special relativity, it's really no surprise.I’m convinced astronomers don’t really understand what they call a galaxy at all.... nor a solar system.....
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?