CERN claims faster-than-light particle measured

[Take Your Lumps]

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/E/EU_BREAKING_LIGHT_SPEED?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT


GENEVA (AP) -- A fundamental pillar of physics - that nothing can go faster than the speed of light - appears to be smashed by an oddball subatomic particle that has apparently made a giant end run around Albert Einstein's theories.

Scientists at the world's largest physics lab said Thursday they have clocked neutrinos traveling faster than light. That's something that according to Einstein's 1905 special theory of relativity - the famous E (equals) mc2 equation - just doesn't happen.

"The feeling that most people have is this can't be right, this can't be real," said James Gillies, a spokesman for the European Organization for Nuclear Research, or CERN, outside the Swiss city of Geneva.

Gillies told The Associated Press that the readings have so astounded researchers that they are asking others to independently verify the measurements before claiming an actual discovery.

"They are inviting the broader physics community to look at what they've done and really scrutinize it in great detail, and ideally for someone elsewhere in the world to repeat the measurements," he said Thursday.

Scientists at the competing Fermilab in Chicago have promised to start such work immediately.

"It's a shock," said Fermilab head theoretician Stephen Parke, who was not part of the research in Geneva. "It's going to cause us problems, no doubt about that - if it's true."

The Chicago team had similar faster-than-light results in 2007, but those came with a giant margin of error that undercut its scientific significance.

Outside scientists expressed skepticism at CERN's claim that the neutrinos - one of the strangest well-known particles in physics - were observed smashing past the cosmic speed barrier of 186,282 miles per second (299,792 kilometers per second).

University of Maryland physics department chairman Drew Baden called it "a flying carpet," something that was too fantastic to be believable.

CERN says a neutrino beam fired from a particle accelerator near Geneva to a lab 454 miles (730 kilometers) away in Italy traveled 60 nanoseconds faster than the speed of light. Scientists calculated the margin of error at just 10 nanoseconds, making the difference statistically significant. But given the enormous implications of the find, they still spent months checking and rechecking their results to make sure there was no flaws in the experiment.

"We have not found any instrumental effect that could explain the result of the measurement," said Antonio Ereditato, a physicist at the University of Bern, Switzerland, who was involved in the experiment known as OPERA.

The CERN researchers are now looking to the United States and Japan to confirm the results.

A similar neutrino experiment at Fermilab near Chicago would be capable of running the tests, said Stavros Katsanevas, the deputy director of France's National Institute for Nuclear and Particle Physics Research. The institute collaborated with Italy's Gran Sasso National Laboratory for the experiment at CERN.

Katsanevas said help could also come from the T2K experiment in Japan, though that is currently on hold after the country's devastating March 11 earthquake and tsunami.

Scientists agree if the results are confirmed, that it would force a fundamental rethink of the laws of nature.

Einstein's special relativity theory that says energy equals mass times the speed of light squared underlies "pretty much everything in modern physics," said John Ellis, a theoretical physicist at CERN who was not involved in the experiment. "It has worked perfectly up until now."

He cautioned that the neutrino researchers would have to explain why similar results weren't detected before, such as when an exploding star - or supernova - was observed in 1987.

"This would be such a sensational discovery if it were true that one has to treat it extremely carefully," said Ellis.

[Bladers]

Another Day, But Same old Story: Another Scientific Theory found to be false.

[Godzuki]

i hope its true so we have to rethink everything. things were getting pretty boring with us maxing out at the speed of light :sleeping

[boozehound]

Another Day, But Same old Story: Another Scientific Theory found to be false.
gotta love this dude. thats the whole point of the scientific method, you fool. Its falsifiable. Meaning that our current understanding can always be improved upon/ revised based on new evidence.


and lets hold off on throwing out a pretty useful tool of energy and matter based on one set of experiments.

[Nick Young]

Yep, once again another thing that science considered an absolute law, that nothing is faster than light has been shattered. I wonder why idiots still continue to have blind belief in science.

[Nick Young]

gotta love this dude. thats the whole point of the scientific method, you fool. Its falsifiable. Meaning that our current understanding can always be improved upon/ revised based on new evidence.


and lets hold off on throwing out a pretty useful tool of energy and matter based on one set of experiments.
why do you continue to have a blind religious faith in something that is always failing you and proven wrong?

[Bladers]

gotta love this dude. thats the whole point of the scientific method, you fool. Its falsifiable. Meaning that our current understanding can always be improved upon/ revised based on new evidence.


and lets hold off on throwing out a pretty useful tool of energy and matter based on one set of experiments.

my Point is you can't put your faith in something that is ever changing. The scientific truths from last year changes the next year.

What we knew the last 10 years have all but remained the same.

What if in 30 years science discover more and more evidence of there being for example "Life after death", "The mind being separate from the brain", "Intelligent Design" and say, before that time you were dead.

That means your entire life. You believed something that was not "truth" and you put your faith in it. Think about it, 50 years ago, the people who put their faith in the discoveries science had made then. Put their faith in something that was false.

The gravity of the whole situation is, whether what you believe now is the absolute truth or not. But the truth is, in 30 years, what you believe now will not be the truth.

[boozehound]

why do you continue to have a blind religious faith in something that is always failing you and proven wrong?
this just exemplifies your complete lack of understanding of the scientific method. The point of science isnt to prove, it is to disprove. thats the whole ****ing point. Now, you can argue that any dogmatic clinging to a specific law or theory that fails to explain the phenomena in question may be blind faith (see, for example, the resistance to plate tectonics), the scientific method is fundamentally designed to challenge our understandings of the world. SMFH at these losers. Good ol serg wasnt getting enough e-ttention with his old bag of tricks, so now hes jumped the superboy bandwagon as a jew converso, eh? what a fukciing fool you are.

[Nick Young]

this just exemplifies your complete lack of understanding of the scientific method. The point of science isnt to prove, it is to disprove. thats the whole ****ing point. Now, you can argue that any dogmatic clinging to a specific law or theory that fails to explain the phenomena in question may be blind faith (see, for example, the resistance to plate tectonics), the scientific method is fundamentally designed to challenge our understandings of the world. SMFH at these losers. Good ol serg wasnt getting enough e-ttention with his old bag of tricks, so now hes jumped the superboy bandwagon as a jew converso, eh? what a fukciing fool you are.
Lol you're the only fool here, simply believing what other people tell you to believe and purposefully fighting against your natural human instincts by shutting down the spirituality portion of their brain. Only a fool would fight against what their brain is telling them to do and purposefully shut down an entire section of their brain.:facepalm

And what do you have against Judaism now, sport?

[RaininThrees]

Bladers is right.

Let's just totally get rid of science.

Who needs it, anyway? What had it done for me lately?

[Dictator]

Very nice............so much knowledge with little time to learn. Also I would be careful believing everything America says unless there is 95-100% confirmation and evidence.

[boozehound]

Lol you're the only fool here, simply believing what other people tell you to believe and purposefully fighting against your natural human instincts by shutting down the spirituality portion of their brain. Only a fool would fight against what their brain is telling them to do and purposefully shut down an entire section of their brain.:facepalm

And what do you have against Judaism now, sport?
listen sport. You and bladers are creating a false schism between cosmology and scientific understanding. Every major world religion (including all major christian sects) acknowledge that their spiritual understanding (read, supernatural) and the scientific explanations of natural phenomena are completely compatible, as they address very different aspects of the human condition. I am comfortable enough in my own spirituality that, unlike you and bladers, I dont have to shove it down everyone's throats, a clear sign of weak faith.

And, I have great respect for Judaism, which is why it is so distasteful that you, having taken such a weak and ill informed view of it, try to claim yourself as one.

[Bladers]

Bladers is right.

Let's just totally get rid of science.

Who needs it, anyway? What had it done for me lately?

I love science.

What has science done for you lately? Science like Physics. Brought us to the moon and into space, satellites, brought you the internet, your computers, tv, electronics, medical advancements, planes, cars, modern architectures, etc.

But none of that has anything to do with *evolution*,
The question you should be asking is what has evolution done for me lately?

[boozehound]

I love science.

What has science done for you lately? Science like Physics. Brought us to the moon, brought you the internet, your computers, tv, electronics, medical advancements, planes, cars, modern architectures, etc.

But none of that has anything to do with *evolution*,
The question you should be asking is what has evolution done for me lately?
and, what science are we talking about in this thread? Oh yeah, physics, just as shaky as evolution. what a ****ing dolt you are.

[N0Skillz]

I think we can all agree Bladers is just a dumbfock that wants attention.

Why don't you go build a boat and try putting every animal in the world on it, and then try making them survive for 40 days.

[OhNoTimNoSho]

my Point is you can't put your faith in something that is ever changing. The scientific truths from last year changes the next year.

What we knew the last 10 years have all but remained the same.

What if in 30 years science discover more and more evidence of there being for example "Life after death", "The mind being separate from the brain", "Intelligent Design" and say, before that time you were dead.

That means your entire life. You believed something that was not "truth" and you put your faith in it. Think about it, 50 years ago, the people who put their faith in the discoveries science had made then. Put their faith in something that was false.

The gravity of the whole situation is, whether what you believe now is the absolute truth or not. But the truth is, in 30 years, what you believe now will not be the truth.
and your point is.... stop practicing science?

[Bladers]

and, what science are we talking about in this thread? Oh yeah, physics, just as shaky as evolution. what a ****ing dolt you are.

Ummm wait. Physics has brought us millions of technology and made us into an advanced civilization and have contributed to life than any known thing in the universe.

On the other hand is evolution (the theory that we evolved from a single replicating cell), what technology has it brought us? what has it contributed to life? That's right. NOTHING, ZER0, NADA!

Oh right, it let us know that our ancestors were apes?
A very profitable and needed theory, helps me get through the day alot. :applause:

[Bladers]

If we continue to catch up with the bible, we soon will find out that the earth is actually flat!

What an idiot. It was the bible that said "the earth was round" back when scientists believed it was flat. :facepalm

[N0Skillz]

What an idiot. It was the bible that said "the earth was round" back when scientists believed it was flat. :facepalm

Oh Really?


It describes it as a "circle". But what they mean is round and flat. Like a pancake.

Daniel 4:11 "The tree grew, and was strong, and the height thereof reached unto heaven, and the sight thereof to the ENDS OF ALL THE EARTH" (How could one tree be seen by all the Earth if they knew the Earth was round.)

Matthew 4:8 "Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them" (Same idea here.)

Isaiah 40:22 ""He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in." (How could the "heavens" be spread out over the Earth like a tent if they believe it's a sphere? They believe the sky literally came down and touched the edges of the Earth.)

Job 38:44 "Where were you when I laid the earth's foundation?Tell me, if you understand. Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know! Who stretched a measuring line across it?" (If they thought the Earth was a sphere, wouldn't they say "around it"... not "across it"?)

Job 38:13 "That it might take hold of the ends of the earth, that the wicked might be shaken out of it?" (How can you "take hold of the ends"...of a sphere?)

Job 38:15 "The earth takes shape like clay under a seal." (Clay when stamped under a seal is flattened and round in shape)

What an idiot

[Godzuki]

I think we can all agree Bladers is just a dumbfock that wants attention.

Why don't you go build a boat and try putting every animal in the world on it, and then try making them survive for 40 days.


they're trolling. i don't believe for a minute any of them really believe what they're saying more than trolling to F with people. in fact i think its pretty obvious they are...

[Droid101]

If you don't have Bladers on ignore, you're just asking to be trolled.

[N0Skillz]

If you don't have Bladers on ignore, you're just asking to be trolled.


Bladers is not even a real christian, im pretty sure he admitted he was Jewish.

[Nick Young]

listen sport. You and bladers are creating a false schism between cosmology and scientific understanding. Every major world religion (including all major christian sects) acknowledge that their spiritual understanding (read, supernatural) and the scientific explanations of natural phenomena are completely compatible, as they address very different aspects of the human condition.
WRONG.

Science is just an attempt to understand, quantify and turn into an equation everything that unspiritual people can't understand.

Even if scientists eventually discover the secrets of the universe in another 300 years of scientific study, they will only understand what Jewish mystics and buddhists and yogis have known for thousands and thousands of years.

Just look at reality, the torah talked about the big bang 6,000 years ago and it was only 40 years ago or so scientists finally discovered it. They still can't explain what the universe was like before the big bang-and never will-but if they were to look in the Zohar or Talmud they would know.

Fools. Unspiritual people shutting off their brains, desperately working and studying to discover what deep down they instinctually already know.

[N0Skillz]

WRONG.

Science is just an attempt to understand, quantify and turn into an equation everything that unspiritual people can't understand.


Was this your attempt at making a complete sentence?

[Bladers]

Oh Really?



What an idiot

Yes really. What did I tell you about referencing those dumb atheist sites?
Didn't I tell you they don't actually study the bible but take surface info and run with it?

The Biblical Hebrew word for “circle” (חוג—chuwg) means a “sphere.”

You're the idiot.

[N0Skillz]

Yes really. What did I tell you about referencing those dumb atheist sites?
Didn't I tell you they don't actually study the bible but take surface info and run with it?

The Biblical Hebrew word for “circle” (חוג—chuwg) means a “sphere.”

You're the idiot.


Damn you log in and out of Nick Young FAST.


Let me ask you something, do you wrap around objects or across them?

Job 38:44 "Where were you when I laid the earth's foundation?Tell me, if you understand. Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know! Who stretched a measuring line across it?"

[boozehound]

Ummm wait. Physics has brought us millions of technology and made us into an advanced civilization and have contributed to life than any known thing in the universe.

On the other hand is evolution (the theory that we evolved from a single replicating cell), what technology has it brought us? what has it contributed to life? That's right. NOTHING, ZER0, NADA!

Oh right, it let us know that our ancestors were apes?
A very profitable and needed theory, helps me get through the day alot. :applause:
again, what is this article in the OP about? Why are you even bringing up evolution?

[N0Skillz]

again, what is this article in the OP about? Why are you even bringing up evolution?


Cause Jesus told him to?

[Bladers]

Damn you log in and out of Nick Young FAST.


Let me ask you something, do you wrap around objects or across them?

Job 38:44 "Where were you when I laid the earth's foundation?Tell me, if you understand. Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know! Who stretched a measuring line across it?"

Do you know what the boundary of light and darkness is?

[Nick Young]

And, I have great respect for Judaism, which is why it is so distasteful that you, having taken such a weak and ill informed view of it, try to claim yourself as one.
lol what the f*ck is this shit, ill informed view of Judaism? Where? Trust the bitter gentile to claim I don't know my own religion:facepalm

If you have as much respect for Judaism as you claim, you would take the time to study Jewish mysticism and realize that this scientific quest to study and quantify the universe is nothing but a sham and waste of time.

Stop shutting down your own brain on purpose, it is like living half a life, like a robotic drone or something, don't know why idiots choose to do this on purpose to themselves, and the ironic thing it is these spiritually decrepid drones who think they are more intelligent and look down on people who DON'T purposefully shut down their own brains:facepalm

[Bladers]

again, what is this article in the OP about? Why are you even bringing up evolution?

Because RaininThrees asked what had science done for him lately.
I gave him a better question, what has evolution done for him lately.

Surely enough he or nor you, couldn't answer that.

[Nick Young]

Because RaininThrees asked what had science done for him lately.
I gave him a better question, what has evolution done for him lately.

Surely enough he or nor you, couldn't answer that.
Evolution is real you fool and compatible with the Old Testament, the Talmud even talks about that God plans everything in advance and knows he might not have gotten everything right when he made the world and so instilled in every creature and plant the ability to adapt and change. Another fact religious people have known for 6,000 years before science finally slowly eventually caught up.

There is nothing unspiritual about evolution, I don't know why Christians hate it so much, it just shows how much greater God is.

[rivers to gates]

Another Day, But Same old Story: Another Scientific Theory found to be false.

Sort of like extreme man made climate change.

[N0Skillz]

Do you know what the boundary of light and darkness is?


Do you know what the words around and across mean?


:violin: :violin:

[Bladers]

Evolution is real you fool

What evolution are you talking about? If you are talking about change, yes change over time occurs in everything.

But if you are saying that all life evolved from a single replicating cell. Then you need to provide evidence for that. DIRECT EVIDENCE.

You also need to explain the fallacies in the claim. Like the processing of information. For evolution to happen, information must be added upwards not reduced downwards. Every study of genetics we have done today, we have not seen information going in the right direction. A direction needed for evolution of life to happen. Think about a virus, think about a mutation, think about a disease. Information is always getting reduced, going downwards, the wrong direction.

For evolution to be possible it must go UPWARDS.

That's just one problem with the theory of evolution (that all life evolved from a single self replicating molecule).

[boozehound]

lol what the f*ck is this shit, ill informed view of Judaism? Where? Trust the bitter gentile to claim I don't know my own religion:facepalm

If you have as much respect for Judaism as you claim, you would take the time to study Jewish mysticism and realize that this scientific quest to study and quantify the universe is nothing but a sham and waste of time.

Stop shutting down your own brain on purpose, it is like living half a life, like a robotic drone or something, don't know why idiots choose to do this on purpose to themselves, and the ironic thing it is these spiritually decrepid drones who think they are more intelligent and look down on people who DON'T purposefully shut down their own brains:facepalm
pretty funny that you have been on this site for years and never once brought up your faith until this recent bout of religious trolling. Shouldnt you be too busy in your architecture coursework? Oh yeah, thats all bullshit as well.

[Nick Young]

Sort of like extreme man made climate change.
yep

[Nick Young]

pretty funny that you have been on this site for years and never once brought up your faith until this recent bout of religious trolling. Shouldnt you be too busy in your architecture coursework? Oh yeah, thats all bullshit as well.
I switched out of architecture in to illustration and business, I'm going to do comics like Love and Rockets and eventually and illustrate the great books like Shakespeare and Dracula.
Architecture was going to be a swagless life of all work 70+ hours a week until I die when I'm 80, only finally given the credit I deserve when I'm an old man in a diaper, that's not a life I want, I'd have to truly be in love with architecture and nothing else to enjoy that life, and I have passion in too many other things, I'd rather achieve immediate fame and success I can enjoy in my youth with my comics I will publish and paintings I'm currently selling.
No fame and wealth yet but I'm working hard and it will come

I have actually talked about Israel and Palestine for years, I always avoid the religious threads because it is full of idiot atheists shutting down their own brains on purpose which pisses me off. Reading and anti-religion atheist rant is the same as reading the ramblings of an autistic hillbilly aka William Faulkner.

Stop trying to solve the mystery Scoobie Doo, I don't lie on here, I have nothing to show off and hide.

You on the other hand seem quite defensive! Completely ignoring the points and advice I am making in order to personally attack me!

Tell me boozehound, why, knowing full well that a whole section of your brain is attuned to spirituality, and that it is part of human instinct to explore that spirituality, why do you fight against instincts and shut down your own brain? Do you enjoy living in the dark?

[gigantes]

hey, all-
i've read most of the conversation and have some theories / feedback on this ongoing 'debate'...

in a way, i think people like "bladers" and "nick young" are very good for the scientific method and for people who strive to remain rational. that is, they directly challenge the rational mind to stay rational and to avoid the many forms of rubbish which can distract a person. i mean, if it's not these two jokers specifically, there will always be others of these people... a huge army, in fact.


case in point: another fascinating article is posted. and in the absence of distraction, it immediately prompts the curious mind to do things like research, ponder, meditate, and potentially re-order their understanding of reality. then, very quickly, religious types seize the opportunity to try twisting the conversation towards god, attacks on evolution, attacks on science, etc, even in the most shallow but effective ways possible.


so what do we do? IMO, too many of us respond knee-jerk to their noise and allow ourselves to get sidetracked, thereby feeding the trolls and allowing them to direct the conversation. very much in the way that political dialogues work and very much in the way that modern-day conservatives have proven themselves absolute masters at.

although, in a very relevant way, constructing a rational response to a nonsensical argument is good exercise and a good reinforcer in one's own approach and beliefs. which amounts biochemically to a laundy-list of positive effects across neurotransmitters, receptors, and various brain regions. which makes us feel righteous, justified and strong.

and i'm not so cynical as to believe that these religious jokers are completely hopeless and completely without possibility of loosening up their clinginess towards religion in the face of a good argument. but one consistent mistake that i think the rationally-minded make is to think that these guys have an overall-balanced mind and that 'with only the right argument they'll begin to see some light.' the same way that they keep pounding away on the logical mind, thinking that it's trained similarly to their own and functions basically the same way.

so, nothing wrong with conversions of both 'sides' towards the other according to their needs... but IMO we're still really just two ships passing in the night. that is, if 'god' seems like the best way to order your life, then vaya con dios. or if science seems the best way to devote yourself, then i say "gopher it."

bottom line-- what can be gained from the introduction of mindless crap to a serious subject? for me, i think simply staying on topic and ignoring the static and pointed attempts at disruption is a really good skill to cultivate. i mean, it's useful for all manner of things in life, as i see it.

we all have a long ways to go, i think...

[gigantes]

re: article,
amazingly cool stuff.

and i'm no scientist, but i doubt that throwing out the mass - energy equation is really the point, here. more likely IMO is building a foundation of understanding that compliments what we already understand.

this seems to be the best way forward, anyway, from my limited understanding of science's existing attempts to reconcile the four forces of nature with quantum physics, string theory, and whatever else might be percolating up.

:confusedshrug:

[Nick Young]

lol these "religious jokers"=the people who already knew what your beloved scientists are currently learning thousands of years before the scientists were even born:lol


Tell me gigantes, you know about science and you know about the spiritual section of your own brain. Why do you purposefully work 24/7 to shut that part of yourself down? What are you afraid of?

The answer? The unknown. A power greater than yourself. But you will never admit this to me or anyone else. Just remember, you can't lie to yourself.

[Timmy D for MVP]

At first I was like: "Whaaaa?" but now that I think about it neutrinos have no mass right?

Ah nevermind they do have mass thinking of something else.

Now I'm like "Whaaaaaa?" again.

[Take Your Lumps]

Tell me gigantes, you know about science and you know about the spiritual section of your own brain.

So where exactly is this spiritual section of the brain?

[KevinNYC]

The question you should be asking is what has evolution done for me lately?


Actually, the question you should be asking is what has evolution done for me gradually?

[RidonKs]

So where exactly is this spiritual section of the brain?
tumors, mostly

[Take Your Lumps]

Oops, nevermind -- found it.

Scientists around the world can rest easy now.

http://i.imgur.com/4yyS6.jpg

[N0Skillz]

But if you are saying that all life evolved from a single replicating cell. Then you need to provide evidence for that. DIRECT EVIDENCE.



That's harder to believe for you then us being magically created out of Clay?

[Lebowsky]

Actually, the question you should be asking is what has evolution done for me gradually?
In his case, nothing much.

[Meticode]

Does this mean we can travel to Pandora faster?

[Bladers]

1)for people who strive to remain rational.
2) they directly challenge the rational mind to stay rational

3) constructing a rational response to a nonsensical argument is good exercise

4) rationally-minded

5) they keep pounding away on the logical mind


:roll: :roll: :roll: Am I the only one who found this shit hilarious?

[brantonli]

Guys......this is an amazingly interesting scientific article on the possibility of subatomic particles breaking the light speed barrier....and almost all the posts here are about attention-seeking idiots? :facepalm

[Bladers]

Actually, the question you should be asking is what has evolution done for me gradually?

You mean the "theory of evolution"....uhmmm.... I guess it... wait....still nothing!

A theory birthed this computer I'm using possible and the internet you're using and the phone I'm talking on right now and the light I'm using and the microwave I'm about to use to eat pizzas which was made by an oven which came into being by the help of another theory. Plus the cute doctor I'm going to go see tomorrow, her equipments were made possible because of scientists (physics) coming up with good theories.

What has the theory of evolution done for me lately? Nothing.
What has the theory of evolution done for me gradually? Nothing.


Okay, yes. I get it. I got monkey genes that are literally bursting through my sub-conscious. Is that it? Is that what the theory of evolution has to offer, the theory that we all evolved from monkeys which evolved from other speicies which initially evolved from a self replicating molecule.


What good is the theory?

[iamgine]

Originally Posted by Catherine E
It describes it as a "circle". But what they mean is round and flat. Like a pancake.

Daniel 4:11 "The tree grew, and was strong, and the height thereof reached unto heaven, and the sight thereof to the ENDS OF ALL THE EARTH" (How could one tree be seen by all the Earth if they knew the Earth was round.)

Matthew 4:8 "Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them" (Same idea here.)

Isaiah 40:22 ""He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in." (How could the "heavens" be spread out over the Earth like a tent if they believe it's a sphere? They believe the sky literally came down and touched the edges of the Earth.)

Job 38:44 "Where were you when I laid the earth's foundation?Tell me, if you understand. Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know! Who stretched a measuring line across it?" (If they thought the Earth was a sphere, wouldn't they say "around it"... not "across it"?)

Job 38:13 "That it might take hold of the ends of the earth, that the wicked might be shaken out of it?" (How can you "take hold of the ends"...of a sphere?)

Job 38:15 "The earth takes shape like clay under a seal." (Clay when stamped under a seal is flattened and round in shape)

Most of the verses given as 'flat earth' examples are simply poetic language not scientific statements. Even today (in our scientific age) people refer to "sunrise" and "sunset" (even though we know that the sun doesn't go up and down literally) and it would be hard to read a love poem without hearing that someone would go to the "ends of earth" for someone they love.

FIGURES OF SPEECH

Bible critics seem to exist in a world without the usual figures of speech. Idioms and poetry seem completely foreign concepts to them, thus when Canadian singer Celine Dion sings "my heart will go on" one presumes they conclude she is making a biological statement of the medical impossibility that here heart will never stop beating rather than the logical conclusion that she is refering to the heart as a symbol of love, a testimony of which will remain long after her physical heart has stopped. In any case the bible is full of poetic figures of speech (employing various linguistic tools such as similies, idioms...)


VISIONS

Daniel 4: 11 are both VISIONS (like a dream) - have you never dreamed that you were flying ? or that your dog was talking to you? Did you write to scientific journals when you woke up? Do you take your dreams as a literal revelation as to aerodynamics or animals linguistic abilities? Or do you perhaps use your common sense?! The bible often refers to people being "shown" things in vision, in Matthew, Jesus is "shown" all the kingdoms of the world, even if the bible WAS here extoling that the earth was flat it would STILL be physically impossible with the human eye to see nations and kingdoms literally thousands of miles away. In order to "see" China or the Incas in what came to be known as South America from a desert in Palestine Jesus would STILL have to have been given a vision. Thus since we are talking about a "vision" why would one aspect of it be considered literal?



Isaiah 40:22 describes the earth as seen from above as being spherical. The Douay Douay-Rheims Bible reads:

"It is he that sitteth upon the GLOBE of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as locusts: he that stretcheth out the heavens as nothing, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in." (Some bibles say "Circle" or "SPHERE") -- Isaiah 40: 22

Skeptics point out that many bibles refer to the circle (instead of "globe") and automatically assume the word translated here "circle" (in hebrew: chuwg) conveys the concept of a flat, circular, pancake-like earth. However is must be noted that the Hebrews had no separate word for a three-dimensional circle ie a "sphere"** thus the word covered a circle both in its two AND three dimensional sense. Since this is indeed the shape of our planet seen two dimentionally from above - as the context of the verse indicates, globe/sphere are both acceptable and scientifically accurate.


POETRY

Job 38:12-13 "...take the earth by the edges and shake the wicked out of it" Clearly Job is using poetic language, the image being of a cloth being "shaken" of debris or unwanted element. In this symbolic sense "edges" means extremities; the point being that no part of the "cloth" escapes being shaken. Even today we have singers that will got to the "ends of the earth" for their love; few people have a problem understanding they mean that they would travel as far as possible to prove their love.

JOB 38:15 => SIMILIE

In poetry a similie is when you liken one thing to another, you can recognise them because they usually use words like "like". An example of an English similie is "she was like a bull in a China shop".

*Do similies draw literal parelles to EVERY ASPECT of what is being compared? No, the poet is not usually refering to a direct paralle to ALL the features of the elements in comparison but usually one (or possibly more). Thus going back to our "bull in a china shop" the similie is not suggesting that the girl has horns or four legs, eats straw or lives on a farm... only to the damage she may cause from being clumsy.

*WHICH feature was JOB refering to? While some would suggest that Job was referring to the shape of the earth, another more reasonable interpretation is that the similie was refering to how soft and mallible clay is when its in a state to be used as a seal. We have a similar English expression "He's like putty in my hand" meaning I can manipulate him at will.

CONCLUSION Rather than refering to the flattened out shape of a seal the words at JOB 38v15 convey the idea that the earth was easily subject to the creative powers of God at its genesis.

[Bladers]

Skeptics point out that many bibles refer to the circle (instead of "globe") and automatically assume the word translated here "circle" (in hebrew: chuwg) conveys the concept of a flat, circular, pancake-like earth. However is must be noted that the Hebrews had no separate word for a three-dimensional circle ie a "sphere"** thus the word covered a circle both in its two AND three dimensional sense. Since this is indeed the shape of our planet seen two dimentionally from above - as the context of the verse indicates, globe/sphere are both acceptable and scientifically accurate.


Why are you trying to reason with the idiots? You should know well enough now that there is no reasoning or logic when it comes to atheists.

I gave him the hebrew word and its meaning in hebrew. Which was the original writings. But his defiance wouldn't let him accept the truth he once knew but chose to forget.

I even asked him what was the seperation of darkness and light.

Now if you got on top of the moon and looked at the earth. What would you see? You would see one part in darkness and one in the light.

Well that's exactly what the bible says. Now if the earth was flat, it won't be so. There would be light all over the earth and then later no light at all. there wouldn't be a division.

God “inscribed” a circle on the surface of the waters at the boundary of light and darkness. This boundary between light and darkness is where evening and morning occur. The boundary is a circle since the earth is round.

Job 26:10 (NKJV)
"He drew a circular horizon on the face of the waters, At the boundary of light and darkness."

http://www.mywebcards.net/demo/images/image-57d215594bd955803b56ebc9f33fd50c-image-78430a959bdd77678edd4e8d0b46a940-a08_h_15_2561.gif

[Jackass18]

lol what the f*ck is this shit, ill informed view of Judaism? Where? Trust the bitter gentile to claim I don't know my own religion:facepalm

If you have as much respect for Judaism as you claim, you would take the time to study Jewish mysticism and realize that this scientific quest to study and quantify the universe is nothing but a sham and waste of time.

Stop shutting down your own brain on purpose, it is like living half a life, like a robotic drone or something, don't know why idiots choose to do this on purpose to themselves, and the ironic thing it is these spiritually decrepid drones who think they are more intelligent and look down on people who DON'T purposefully shut down their own brains:facepalm

See, don't doubt Sergio. He knows everything about the universe. Everything. Drop science and just listen to this man's words. Stop wasting your time with science! Listen to the truth from the great rabbi Sergio, all-knowing mystic of the universe.

[Bladers]

I made a diagram that could be eaisly understood, for the brain dead.

http://i156.photobucket.com/albums/t39/Bladerskb/Untitleddrawing.png

[Bladers]

And once again, everyone is fooled into a debate of science v religion by trolls.

I am disappoint

Its funny how every one on the religious side are marked trolls and the athiest (which isn't the side of science by the way) are regarded as the smart, logical and reason people.

But if you are religious and question evolution. You are ofcourse a troll. No matter how you put out your argument. You're regarded as a troll.

Its a win win situation. The atheist never get to back up their beliefs and every uprising is quickly squashed by accusing the person of trolling.

[Bladers]

I don't think everyone on the religious side is a troll. I think you are a troll, troll.

Ofcourse not everyone on the religious side is regarded by atheist as a troll. Only those who seriously question evolution and ask tough questions. Only those atheists feel threatened by.

Tell me that isn't the truth?

List the number of religious people who you consider a troll and then list the number of religious people you don't.

Lets see if there's a pattern.

[Take Your Lumps]

They're using rooms like this to detect these nutrinos.

http://www.universetoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/neutrino.jpg

Meanwhile, on our side of the pond, we have knuckle draggers wasting everyone's time attempting to falsify without evidence the only thing that makes modern biology work and make any sense.

Yay.

[Timmy D for MVP]

I thought those underground rooms were trying to detect the existence of tachyons (which theoretically do travel faster than light).

But now that I think about it you're prob right.

[talkingconch]

science shits on religion so not sure wat some people are saying here

[Scoooter]

They're using rooms like this to detect these nutrinos.

Meanwhile, on our side of the pond, we have knuckle draggers wasting everyone's time attempting to falsify without evidence the only thing that makes modern biology work and make any sense.

Yay.
We have neutrino detectors in the States too.

[Nick Young]

See, don't doubt Sergio. He knows everything about the universe. Everything. Drop science and just listen to this man's words. Stop wasting your time with science! Listen to the truth from the great rabbi Sergio, all-knowing mystic of the universe.
If you had spiritual fulfillment in your life, instead of shutting down your own brain, you wouldn't be such a bitter goon.

[Timmy D for MVP]

I don't get Bladers' point anyway.

The Earth being round was known faaaaar before the Bible was even written. It in fact pre-dates Christianity by... about 500 years.

[Bladers]

This will be the last I talk to you troll. :cheers:

Another atheist bites the dust.

[Bladers]

I don't get Bladers' point anyway.

The Earth being round was known faaaaar before the Bible was even written. It in fact pre-dates Christianity by... about 500 years.

If you are going to make a statement, then provide proof.

The truth that the earth was a sphere and that the universe was expanded and that the earth was hung on nothing was said by job, 3,000 years ago.

[Nick Young]

I don't get Bladers' point anyway.

The Earth being round was known faaaaar before the Bible was even written. It in fact pre-dates Christianity by... about 500 years.

You are an idiot:facepalm

Did you know that it was written the Earth was round in the old testament, which is the first half of the bible, 1,500years before Christianity existed. If you are going to talk about history, atleast actually have a basic idea of it.

[rivers to gates]

yep

Only an idiot would be against Science. But that doesn't mean that everything scientists tell you is correct. It's ironic that SOME atheist treat scientist as if they're religious figures. Some are actually science extremist and science is basically a religion to them even though they claim to hate religion so much.

Always remember this quote:

[QUOTE]

[Jackass18]

If you had spiritual fulfillment in your life, instead of shutting down your own brain, you wouldn't be such a bitter goon.

http://angrywhitedude.com/wp-content/uploads2/2011/07/are-you-wizard.jpg

Carry on, Mr. Pseudointellectual.

[Timmy D for MVP]

You are an idiot:facepalm

Did you know that it was written the Earth was round in the old testament, which is the first half of the bible, 1,500years before Christianity existed. If you are going to talk about history, atleast actually have a basic idea of it.

Hmm I had no idea it was in the book of Job. And though the actual date is unknown best estimates do in fact make it older than the Greek thinkers. That is in fact my mistake. However the part you bolded is still indeed fact.

However, and this is the good part about it, these Greek guys... they used cool things like observable evidence and testable hypotheses. Then one used math and came within somewhere around 15% margin of the actual circumference. So you can see the difference between a passage (that you have yet to convince me says that the Earth is spherical) saying something in a metaphorical text, versus an idea that is based on empirical evidence and supported by a language that is indeed quite literal (math).

Simply put, my point still stands. It was not anything written in the Bible that showed the world the shape of... umm... the world (could have worded that better). But it was in fact these philosophers, mathematicians, and scientists.

Also if you wish to be taken seriously using words like idiot and such instead of explaining your side is... well not helping you. I have no issue making a mistake and it's on you to call me on it and then we can discuss from there. In fact it's just like what the scientific community does.

[Nick Young]

Your point doesn't stand, already there have been many verses posted saying the Earth is round.

Do you think the ancient Jews didn't know anything about math and science? Why do you think that today Jews have the highest average IQs of any ethnic group in the world, and why we have produced so many world changing geniuses like Karl Marx and Albert Einstein?

Unlike nearly every other race in the world where physical size and strength is the most important trait that gets passed on, for Jews it has always been intelligence was the most valued trait.

The torah is just written in a way so that everyone of all ages regardless of educational background can understand it, it would not be a universal book if it talked about equations and astronomy and you needed a 5 year education to understand it.

[Timmy D for MVP]

Your point doesn't stand, already there have been many verses posted saying the Earth is round.

Do you think the ancient Jews didn't know anything about math and science? Why do you think that today Jews have the highest average IQs of any ethnic group in the world, and why we have produced so many world changing geniuses like Karl Marx and Albert Einstein?

Unlike nearly every other race in the world where physical size and strength is the most important trait that gets passed on, for Jews it has always been intelligence was the most valued trait.

The torah is just written in a way so that everyone of all ages regardless of educational background can understand it, it would not be a universal book if it talked about equations and astronomy and you needed a 5 year education to understand it.

Please I would like you to explain to me first off how they say that it's spherical (I can only find round and disk like etc.) and secondly how my point doesn't stand. Is it or is it not the Greeks who are credited with the spherical Earth theory?

Of course they understood math and science, even more reason that my point still stands. It wouldn't have been a thing at all when the Greeks said the Earth was a sphere. History would have been a might different don't you think? But either they just didn't bother with the whole proving such a thing OR maybe the actual translation and they way they read it actually doesn't mean spherical.

Secondly I'm no Biblical or Religious scholar but I'm almost certain that these texts are extremely tough to understand and people dedicate their lives to trying to figure out what they mean. People like Biblical or Religious scholars to name a couple. You need a lifetime of education to understand it.

[Nick Young]

Please I would like you to explain to me first off how they say that it's spherical (I can only find round and disk like etc.) and secondly how my point doesn't stand. Is it or is it not the Greeks who are credited with the spherical Earth theory?

Of course they understood math and science, even more reason that my point still stands. It wouldn't have been a thing at all when the Greeks said the Earth was a sphere. History would have been a might different don't you think? But either they just didn't bother with the whole proving such a thing OR maybe the actual translation and they way they read it actually doesn't mean spherical.

Secondly I'm no Biblical or Religious scholar but I'm almost certain that these texts are extremely tough to understand and people dedicate their lives to trying to figure out what they mean. People like Biblical or Religious scholars to name a couple. You need a lifetime of education to understand it.
There are even passages previously quoted where the earth is specifically referred to as a GLOBE. Why do you keep ignoring it? The Greeks didn't discover that the world was a sphere.

The Persians and Babylonians already knew this 3,000 years ago-AGAIN LEARN YOUR HISTORY:hammerhead: Stop trying to act intelligent when you clearly don't know what you're saying. During the Hellenistic Greek times it was already UNIVERSALLY ACCEPTED that the Earth was a globe, all Pythagoreas did was make an equation saying something that everyone already knew.

Even the earliest known writings from Mesopotamia describe the earth as an upturned bowl or a dome.

Ancient people weren't as stupid as you think they were. They were just as intelligent as us and acted extremely similar, they just didn't have access to the same technology and materials that we do today. The Aztecs, the Mayans, the Incans, the Tibetan Buddhists, the Hindus, the Aboriginals, ALL OF THESE and many more ancient people referred to the Earth as a sphere. The ancient greeks get all the credit in all the high school history text books because they were the first to introduce the idea to WESTERN EUROPE. All they did was bring what was common knowledge in the rest of the world to Western Europe.

Stop trying to pretend you know what you're talking about, you aren't as clever as you seem to think you are, my advice to you is don't talk about what you clearly know nothing about.

[chains5000]

you aren't as clever as you seem to think you are
You should read that every five minutes or so

[Nick Young]

You should read that every five minutes or so
Hmm, is this post a personal attack that has nothing to do with the discussion at hand?

Leave your trolling for threads where interesting discussion isn't taking place. No one cares about your bitchy estrogen fueled little comments you make about nearly every post of mine:facepalm

[chains5000]

Hmm, is this post a personal attack that has nothing to do with the discussion at hand?

Leave your trolling for threads where interesting discussion isn't taking place. No one cares about your bitchy estrogen fue:facepalm led little comments you make about nearly every post of mine
Just stating the irony

[Nick Young]

Just stating the irony
whatever helps boost your self esteem, sport:cheers:

[Bladers]

There are even passages previously quoted where the earth is specifically referred to as a GLOBE. Why do you keep ignoring it? The Greeks didn't discover that the world was a sphere.

The Persians and Babylonians already knew this 3,000 years ago-AGAIN LEARN YOUR HISTORY:hammerhead: Stop trying to act intelligent when you clearly don't know what you're saying. During the Hellenistic Greek times it was already UNIVERSALLY ACCEPTED that the Earth was a globe, all Pythagoreas did was make an equation saying something that everyone already knew.

Even the earliest known writings from Mesopotamia describe the earth as an upturned bowl or a dome.

Ancient people weren't as stupid as you think they were. They were just as intelligent as us and acted extremely similar, they just didn't have access to the same technology and materials that we do today. The Aztecs, the Mayans, the Incans, the Tibetan Buddhists, the Hindus, the Aboriginals, ALL OF THESE and many more ancient people referred to the Earth as a sphere. The ancient greeks get all the credit in all the high school history text books because they were the first to introduce the idea to WESTERN EUROPE. All they did was bring what was common knowledge in the rest of the world to Western Europe.

Stop trying to pretend you know what you're talking about, you aren't as clever as you seem to think you are, my advice to you is don't talk about what you clearly know nothing about.

I'm sorryt but you will need alil bit of specificity in that.
From what I know every known civilization believed the earth was flat and was carried by something. The buddist believed it was carried by a turtle. etc.

It was only the bible that first introduced the idea of empty space and that the earth was a sphere that hung on nothing.

"He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing." (Job 26:7)

[CLE[216]]

I'm sorryt but you will need alil bit of specificity in that.
From what I know every known civilization believed the earth was flat and was carried by something. The buddist believed it was carried by a turtle. etc.

It was only the bible that first introduced the idea of empty space and that the earth was a sphere that hung on nothing.

"He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing." (Job 26:7)

Actually there are a number of Bible passages that imply a flat earth. It talks about the "ends" of the earth, and also seeing god's entire kingdom from atop a mountain.

[iamgine]

']Actually there are a number of Bible passages that imply a flat earth. It talks about the "ends" of the earth, and also seeing god's entire kingdom from atop a mountain.
http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=6354419&postcount=57

[shlver]

http://static.arxiv.org/pdf/1109.4897.pdf

Actual paper for anyone who wants to review it.
The only problem I see is that there is no velocity dispersion.

[Clippersfan86]

Awesome :applause: . Here comes the Star Trek/Mass Effect age 100 years from now. I'm a big fan of Einstein but I know eventually beyond reasonable doubt they will prove FTL speed can be reached.

[Timmy D for MVP]

There are even passages previously quoted where the earth is specifically referred to as a GLOBE. Why do you keep ignoring it? The Greeks didn't discover that the world was a sphere.

The Persians and Babylonians already knew this 3,000 years ago-AGAIN LEARN YOUR HISTORY:hammerhead: Stop trying to act intelligent when you clearly don't know what you're saying. During the Hellenistic Greek times it was already UNIVERSALLY ACCEPTED that the Earth was a globe, all Pythagoreas did was make an equation saying something that everyone already knew.

Even the earliest known writings from Mesopotamia describe the earth as an upturned bowl or a dome.

Ancient people weren't as stupid as you think they were. They were just as intelligent as us and acted extremely similar, they just didn't have access to the same technology and materials that we do today. The Aztecs, the Mayans, the Incans, the Tibetan Buddhists, the Hindus, the Aboriginals, ALL OF THESE and many more ancient people referred to the Earth as a sphere. The ancient greeks get all the credit in all the high school history text books because they were the first to introduce the idea to WESTERN EUROPE. All they did was bring what was common knowledge in the rest of the world to Western Europe.

Stop trying to pretend you know what you're talking about, you aren't as clever as you seem to think you are, my advice to you is don't talk about what you clearly know nothing about.

The Greeks actually get credit... by historians. Not just high school text books for proving it with science and math. Again this is VERY key.

The other thing is that words were in fact changed in later translations of the Bible. The actual translation from Hebrew of the passage in Job refers to a circle, when they have an entirely different word for sphere: which you'd imagine they'd use if they were describing a sphere. Also anything written AFTER the fact is clearly influenced by the modern (at that time) thought. That's just how writing works.

AND in all honesty I'm having a hard time finding anyone before the Greeks who proposed a Spherical Earth notion. Do you have evidence of this outside of a passage that I'm still not even close to convinced mentioning anything close to a sphere? Because I'm really quite interested in where to find it. What I think MAY be the case is that they were the first to go ahead and get to figuring out if that was in fact the case. If that's the case there is again a reason for that, if someone mentions off hand that the Earth is a sphere that doesn't mean they know it is you know what I'm saying?

I feel like we're gonna have a divide here that we won't be able to get past. I know absolutely that ancient peoples had vast knowledge. IN FACT we've lost a shit ton of it throughout history (Library of Alexandria is especially painful to me). But there is a clear divide to a guy like me, who's a science guy, between saying something, and showing it. Make sense?

[Timmy D for MVP]

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=6354419&postcount=57

Iamage I'm not directing this at you because I don't really know your MO and your ideals and how you roll about it all, but I do want to make a general point here that I do see from other people.

I think it is without doubt that this text is a metaphorical piece of work. A literal reading is just not something most could accept. However, you cannot pick and choose when to read it literally and when to read it metaphorically without support for why you doing that for the particular passage, beside that it might support your point.

[Timmy D for MVP]

http://static.arxiv.org/pdf/1109.4897.pdf

Actual paper for anyone who wants to review it.
The only problem I see is that there is no velocity dispersion.

Damnit it's not working for me... I gotta find it elsewhere. Also when I have time to read it. :oldlol:

Is it pretty long? I really don't even get the page to show up.

[Bladers]

The Greeks actually get credit... by historians. Not just high school text books for proving it with science and math. Again this is VERY key.


The bible gets the only credits because it was the first one.


The other thing is that words were in fact changed in later translations of the Bible.

No they were not. You don't even know what a book translation is right? The word was translated from the ORIGINAL HEBREW TRANSCRIPTS.

Just like today we have books in hundreds of different languages that are translated from the original language it was written in, english.

You should know this, a book of your bible, the God delusion, is translated into 30 different languages.



The actual translation from Hebrew of the passage in Job refers to a circle, when they have an entirely different word for sphere: which you'd imagine they'd use if they were describing a sphere.


No they do not you damn retard. First of all its "transcript" not "translation". A translation would mean it wasn't the original. Secondly they use only one word for both concepts.



Also anything written AFTER the fact is clearly influenced by the modern (at that time) thought. That's just how writing works.


Written after the fact? WTF are you talking about? Gosh, You have no clue of anything what so ever about the bible.



AND in all honesty I'm having a hard time finding anyone before the Greeks who proposed a Spherical Earth notion. Do you have evidence of this outside of a passage that I'm still not even close to convinced mentioning anything close to a sphere? Because I'm really quite interested in where to find it. What I think MAY be the case is that they were the first to go ahead and get to figuring out if that was in fact the case. If that's the case there is again a reason for that, if someone mentions off hand that the Earth is a sphere that doesn't mean they know it is you know what I'm saying?

I feel like we're gonna have a divide here that we won't be able to get past. I know absolutely that ancient peoples had vast knowledge. IN FACT we've lost a shit ton of it throughout history (Library of Alexandria is especially painful to me). But there is a clear divide to a guy like me, who's a science guy, between saying something, and showing it. Make sense?


I gave you and you disregarded it. There are many verses talking about it.


The seperation of darkness and light.

If you got on top of the moon and looked at the earth. What would you see? You would see one part in darkness and one in the light.

Well that's exactly what the bible says. Now if the earth was flat, it won't be so. There would be light all over the earth and then later no light at all. there wouldn't be a division.

God “inscribed” a circle on the surface of the waters at the boundary of light and darkness. This boundary between light and darkness is where evening and morning occur. The boundary is a circle since the earth is round.

Job 26:10 (NKJV)
"He drew a circular horizon on the face of the waters, At the boundary of light and darkness."

http://www.mywebcards.net/demo/images/image-57d215594bd955803b56ebc9f33fd50c-image-78430a959bdd77678edd4e8d0b46a940-a08_h_15_2561.gif

http://i156.photobucket.com/albums/t39/Bladerskb/Untitleddrawing.png


The earth floats in space.

The Hindus believe the earth to be supported on the backs of four elephants, which stand on the shell of a gigantic tortoise floating on the surface of the world’s waters.

The earth of the Vedic priests was set on 12 solid pillars; its upper side was its only habitable side.

The Altaic people of Northern Siberia affirm that their mighty Ulgen created the earth on the waters and placed under it three great fish to support it.
The Tartars and many of the other tribes of Eurasia believe the earth to be supported by a great bull.

It was only after we got pictures from apollo was scientist able to catch up to this verse in the bible.

Job 26:7 (NKJV) "He stretches out the north over empty space; He hangs the earth on nothing."


The expanding universe.

Scientist used to believe that the earth was static, eternal, With no beginning or end. It was called the static universe, also referred to as a "stationary" or "Einstein" universe. But the bible had long said God expanded the universe by stretching it out. It was only after a catholic priest who was a scientist proposed the theory of an expanding universe, a universe with a beginning and an end. Of-course scientists didn't take it well because of his religious background. But look at where we are no?w

Isaiah 40:22 (NKJV) - "It is He who sits above the circle of the earth, And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers, Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in."

[Timmy D for MVP]

You have continually provided passages, but they all speak in poetic terms.

I'm having a hard time writing down what I'm thinking. Let me compose my thoughts on this one later tonight and maybe I can better explain it.

I can def say though that the written after the Greeks part is true no? Any parts of the Bible written after the Greeks proposed and showed this would therefore be influenced by the notions that have already been proven. Does that make sense?

And yes there have been changes to the Bible over the years. You are delusional if you think your version of the Bible is the same as that in say the 3rd century (not talking about adding new books but the books that remain from that time have been altered).

But at the end of the day I still say this: why then are the Greeks attributed to the idea? It is a very important question.

I'll be back later tonight, I might go to my girl's house so if that's the case it'll be waaaaay later. Hopefully by then I can really have a way to put out what I'm thinking.

[vinsane01]

I have thought about how the scientific community came into the conclusion that the speed of light was the cosmic speed limit but never bothered searching for the answer. I just assumed that nothing has been observed to be faster; that plus some complex mathematics. But didnt the early universe presumably expanded faster than the speed of light on it's first few seconds?

Anyway, seeing how this thread has been derailed to discuss about how religious revelation is somehow above science; Id like to give out my two cents. Setting aside whether or not their respective information is true; the one difference between scientific findings and the revelations found in the bible or any other religious texts is the way they got their conclusion. Scientific findings goes through the scientific method to find out if a certain hypothesis is true or not. The results are then further analyzed and experimented on to satisfy any lingering doubt; and boy we are never satisfied. Basically, science has the explanation for their revelation; and for some people explanation is an imperative requirement to justify a proposition.

Case in point, Erastothanes. 300BC. The first person to calculate the earth's circumference. Also one of the first to give an explanation as to the idea that the earth is spherical and not flat; which at that time was an extraordinary leap of faith and/or logic. He measured the shadows of two vertical post in two different places (farther to each other that it revealed the earth's angle) at the same time and day of year. The ingenious experiment showed that point A cast no shadow while the point B casted a shadow which led him to two possible interpretations which was A) The world has a spherical shape or B) the earth is flat but the sun gives off divergent rays. We all know which one is right.

[miller-time]

arguing whether or not the bible or some other person stated that the earth is not flat first is really an exercise in futility. even if the bible was first it doesn't mean the statement was derived from a divine influence. all you can do is make one of two inferences. either;

a. the human author of the bible conceived of the idea himself took or it from a contemporary or preceding philosopher.

or

b. the knowledge was given by god.

so the question is how can you distinguish which one it was?

knowing the earth is a sphere may not be something we know intuitively, and it is knowledge we take for granted, but an astute thinker from any historical age could have figured it out. it isn't a discovery that requires a lot of advanced technical equipment. is it really that far fetched to say the claim in the bible (assuming this is what the claim is actually stating) was derived from men? i mean it is not as far fetched as saying it was divinely inspired surely - using occam's razor.

[Bladers]

arguing whether or not the bible or some other person stated that the earth is not flat first is really an exercise in futility. even if the bible was first it doesn't mean the statement was derived from a divine influence. all you can do is make one of two inferences. either;

a. the human author of the bible conceived of the idea himself took or it from a contemporary or preceding philosopher.

or

b. the knowledge was given by god.

so the question is how can you distinguish which one it was?

knowing the earth is a sphere may not be something we know intuitively, and it is knowledge we take for granted, but an astute thinker from any historical age could have figured it out. it isn't a discovery that requires a lot of advanced technical equipment. is it really that far fetched to say the claim in the bible (assuming this is what the claim is actually stating) was derived from men? i mean it is not as far fetched as saying it was divinely inspired surely - using occam's razor.

Nice and touchey essay.

Too bad there are hundreds of facts in the bible which are scientific truths today. Like the earth being hung on nothing while most thought it was flat and being carried by turtles or w/e. And ofcourse the expanding universe, science caught up to that a-couple of years ago. Plus the number of stars there are in the universe, science is also catching up with that.

[miller-time]

Nice and touchey essay.

Too bad there are hundreds of facts in the bible which are scientific truths today. Like the earth being hung on nothing while most thought it was flat and being carried by turtles or w/e. And ofcourse the expanding university, science caught up to that a-couple of years ago.

observations of the sun and the moon being hung on nothing probably inspired that idea, and the expanding universe is highly interpretive.


Plus the number of stars there are in the universe, science is also catching up with that.

what does it say about the number of stars?

[Timmy D for MVP]

arguing whether or not the bible or some other person stated that the earth is not flat first is really an exercise in futility. even if the bible was first it doesn't mean the statement was derived from a divine influence. all you can do is make one of two inferences. either;

a. the human author of the bible conceived of the idea himself took or it from a contemporary or preceding philosopher.

or

b. the knowledge was given by god.

so the question is how can you distinguish which one it was?

knowing the earth is a sphere may not be something we know intuitively, and it is knowledge we take for granted, but an astute thinker from any historical age could have figured it out. it isn't a discovery that requires a lot of advanced technical equipment. is it really that far fetched to say the claim in the bible (assuming this is what the claim is actually stating) was derived from men? i mean it is not as far fetched as saying it was divinely inspired surely - using occam's razor.

Ahh he says what I was trying to better than I did. Also vinsane spoke much metter than I did on what else I was trying to say about the importance of the Greeks actually using math and observable data. They were showing, not saying.

[Bladers]

observations of the sun and the moon being hung on nothing probably inspired that idea,

Not at all. Every one in those days used to believe that the earth was carried by some physical entity, turtle, etc.

And no, it was not observation of the sun and moon, now you are just making shit up. I'm not surprised though. But they didn't have telescope and equipment 3,000 years ago. For the non-christians, it was when Apollo brought back pictures that it dawned on them.



and the expanding universe is highly interpretive.


So basically all you are doing is making a statement to try to explain things away? not really tackling them on? how convenient.

http://www.evolutionnews.org/lemaitre-einstein.jpg

He was the one who proposed the expanding universe theory.
Yes a roman catholic priest. Science before then use to believe in the static universe theory (always existing & stagnant universe), or Einstein universe.

In-fact when he introduced the theory, the pope came out the same day to speak about it, saying it proved the bible was true! In-fact the main-stream scientists rejected his theory initially because it was in the bible.