The Hubble Tends to Validate the Bible

Status
Not open for further replies.
H

HectorDecimal

Registered Senior Member
The hubble (bifocals and reading chart installed :) ) has shown us forming star systems in the Orion Nebula especially. Although there is controversy over the nature of the PROTOPlanetarYDisk's (Protoplyds), mine especially throwing sand in the wheel of discovery, classic physics would tell us that the planets are completely formed and, with the nebular light still present, even life could be forming on them PRIOR to the star's ignition. I have found no other religion, Koran, Confuscius or otherwise that gets that simple chronology correct. If I ever had my doubts, which I have at times, the Hubble and other space stationed telescopes have confirmed my belief in that book as the written word of God.

Other perspectives beyond what the telescopes see, is the "unseen;" the 5th Dimension as Kaluza-Klein dubs it. String theory rearranges all that along with many who advocate time travel. If someone believes in prophecy, they believe in time travel. Planck Time is an accepted basic unit of time based around the speed of the photon. If we can only take in less than 100 frames per second, a stream of photons generate millions of interstices between those frames. The unseen goes on forever.
 
classic physics would tell us that the planets are completely formed and, with the nebular light still present, even life could be forming on them PRIOR to the star's ignition
Click to expand...

Nonsense I say, show me where you get this information from besides just making it up with your opinions, links please.
 
cosmictraveler said:
Nonsense I say, show me where you get this information from besides just making it up with your opinions, links please.
Click to expand...

I'm less than 20 posts, so links are verbotten for a few more.

Let me toss that back at you:

It is nonsense to say my post is nonsense. Show me where you get information that dismisses my so-called "nonsense." Besides, this area is wide open to opinion that would compare findings in the cosmos to belief and opinion.
 
HectorDecimal said:
I'm less than 20 posts, so links are verbotten for a few more.

Let me toss that back at you:

It is nonsense to say my post is nonsense. Show me where you get information that dismisses my so-called "nonsense." Besides, this area is wide open to opinion that would compare findings in the cosmos to belief and opinion.
Click to expand...

In this forum it is up to the OP to provide the PROOF as to what they are presenting, not up to us to disprove the point. So please provide us with a link that proves your assertions or just say it is your opinion.
 
I guess you'll have to wait till I reach that 20th post and my time allows... NOnetheless, there is no "proof" either way, only evidence of acretion disks and classic physics would support my argumant and tend to dismiss the other. If we leave out classic physics through some notion or proposition, then one guess is as good as the other.

I think this is post #18 for me, still, as I suggested, you are welcome to "go fetch." :)
 
HectorDecimal said:
I guess you'll have to wait till I reach that 20th post and my time allows... NOnetheless, there is no "proof" either way, only evidence of acretion disks and classic physics would support my argumant and tend to dismiss the other. If we leave out classic physics through some notion or proposition, then one guess is as good as the other.

I think this is post #18 for me, still, as I suggested, you are welcome to "go fetch." :)
Click to expand...

It is very simple for you to just copy and paste a link here so if you wouldn't mind providing that for us all to see. Just right click on the properties of the link and then copy it then post it here.
 
cosmictraveler said:
It is very simple for you to just copy and paste a link here so if you wouldn't mind providing that for us all to see. Just right click on the properties of the link and then copy it then post it here.
Click to expand...

It's very simple for you to actually read and if you don't know the words, to look them up such as "I have less than 20 post..."

I can see you hijack threads with off topics and insults. Do people ignore you a lot? I'm assumiing you are younger than say 25...

http://hubblesite.org/gallery/album/star/protoplanetary_disk/pr2008039b/

There's your link with much more available.

We know God gave Moses, in Genesis, the view that first came the heavens and the earth (Hyperspace and matter) then light (Photons and the electromagnetic spectrum) and later ignited the sun and perhaps even attracted the moon into Earth's orbit. (Distinction in earth and Earth.)

Now can we get to discussing the physics of what that protoplyd is telling us?
 
Yeah, except Job contradicts it, as one would expect if the Bible were a collection of myths:

4Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.

5Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?

6Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;

7When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

Job38​

This implies that the stars came first, as they were already present when God laid the foundations of the Earth.
 
Rhaedas said:
So you're claiming that one of the brighter stars in the night sky hasn't ignited yet?
Click to expand...

The one in post #9 is a depiction of plasma jets. I see no masked bright star. The one in post #8 appears to be masked and the apparent planetoid as well. Likely not the best example, but it showed that we have Hubble shots of planets being formed around other stars.

BTW... it would help if you quoted which example you are referring to. :)
 
Does the bible explain how you can use a coronagraph to block a star's light so you can better see material around the star?
 
Show me where you get information that dismisses my so-called "nonsense."
Click to expand...

From your own link..........

http://hubblesite.org/gallery/album/star/protoplanetary_disk/pr2008039b/

Observations taken 21 months apart by Hubble's Advanced Camera for Surveys' coronagraph show that the object is moving along a path around the star and therefore is gravitationally bound to it. The planet is 10.7 billion miles from the star, or about 10 times the distance of the planet Saturn from the sun.

Fomalhaut is burning hydrogen at such a furious rate through nuclear fusion that it will burn out in only 1 billion years, which is 1/10th the lifespan of our sun. This means there is little opportunity for advanced life to evolve on any habitable worlds the star might possess.

In 2004, the coronagraph in the High Resolution Camera on Hubble's Advanced Camera for Surveys produced the first-ever resolved visible-light image of a large dust belt surrounding Fomalhaut.

Fomalhaut (α PsA, α Piscis Austrini, Alpha Piscis Austrini) is the brightest star in the constellation Piscis Austrinus and one of the brightest stars in the sky. Fomalhaut can be seen low in the southern sky in the northern hemisphere in fall and early winter evenings. Near latitude 50˚N, it sets around the time Sirius rises, and does not reappear until Antares sets. Its name derives from Arabic فم الحوت (fum al-ḥawt), meaning "mouth of the [Southern] Fish".

This is a class A star on the main sequence approximately 25 light-years (7.7 pc) from Earth. Since 1943, the spectrum of this star has served as one of the stable anchor points by which other stars are classified.[5] It is classified as a Vega-like star that emits excess infrared radiation, indicating it is surrounded by a circumstellar disk.

I can see you hijack threads with off topics and insults. Do people ignore you a lot? I'm assumiing you are younger than say 25...
Click to expand...


Insults? Under 25?:rolleyes:

So your assesment about a planet forming without a sun is not shown, it does show there is a sun there and has been for a very long time.:p
 
Rhaedas said:
Does the bible explain how you can use a coronagraph to block a star's light so you can better see material around the star?
Click to expand...

No. I think I did that in my last response to your last response, save for mentioning the coronagraph.

The Bible tells us that knowledge is among the greatest of all gifts. Albert Einstein told us that imagination was more important than knowledge. I have both, otherwise I'd be unable to connect what the coronagraph tells us is going on behind the mask.

BTW... in photography we used to call the various types of masks used by the coronagraph "Dodgers and Vignettes." ;)
 
HectorDecimal said:
http://hubblesite.org/gallery/album/star/protoplanetary_disk/pr1999005k/

another beauty! The star CLEARLY has not yet ignited.
Click to expand...

This is to clear up the question I asked about which post was being menioned where someone failed to answer. This shot is clearly void of the dodger mask from the coronagraphic view. It is obvious why. There is no ignited star, yet planty is going on in the central area as well. There was no need to mask the star.

This is only one, but even a year ago there were only a handful of these shots where planets are present in the shot. I'm sure more shots void of an ignited star prior to the acretion within the disk will unveil themselves.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top