B. John Jones

I already know it works. For me it would be time wasted. Considering the time you guys have spent challenging Biblical notions, I would think you'd have the guts to prove this wrong if you thought you could. I trust the human written testimony of Moses and the cloud of written testimonies following his, in this case. Human testimony is valid evidence in any court of law. It holds up in every institution of government. Scripture has been counted as axiom during many periods of history, far prior to modern science. The burden of proof is on the scientific community. I'm not a member of the scientific community. I am a member of the Bible believing Christian church, those believing the written testimony of Jesus of Nazareth, by his followers and apostles. You say evolution of species or organisms occurs due to survival of the fittest. I reject that. I don't reject the scientific community. I embrace them. But if the scientific community gets to write a false script, I'm testifying here, that community will stumble and fall, irreparably. And if God is true, then let the church of the Islands of Hawaii, sweep the nations.

Bye.

How about an ant farm, taken well care of, with proper lighting, next to a gigantic stuffed ant, and a copy of Henry Ford's autobiography so they can see it?

What about it? What do you expect would happen? Maybe you could yourself make some initial tests and observations.

That's what Jacob did. Do it. See how fast they develop. This is your controlled population. In your uncontrolled population, remove the stuffed ant and the book. Keep everything else the same. See how fast the test population produces and reproduces during half a normal lifetime of an ant colony. The expectation is the controlled group will excel.

How about an ant farm, taken well care of, with proper lighting, next to a gigantic stuffed ant, and a copy of Henry Ford's autobiography so they can see it?

The following notion seems ridiculous but I'd be willing to bet it's true (everything that works in the source text seems ridiculous).

Gen 30:29-43 illustrates how Abraham's grandson, Jacob, became filthy rich by raising and reproducing flocks of lambs and goats through thoroughbred, rocket-like, reproductive stature. His method, if proven, defies all pseudonyms of the common notion of natural selection. It illustrates how a community of related organisms, having something predominant in common (however ridiculous), will strengthen exponentially. This is the total truth about true biological evolution. (This entire principle is first introduced in Gen10:1-9 [Tower of Babel])

Don't challenge it. Test it.

Aside: This is also why the Bible-based Christian church has continued, and will through the very end.

 

If it's true then you were wrong when you said they were terms used by natural science.

 

 

 

You are visiting a science discussion site. When in Rome...

Haste makes waste. I clearly distinguished between "natural science" and "formal science," those terms being of the former class.

I'd say if you want to teach scientists you have to learn science.

I'm always learning learning science, will always be learning science. It will never be my major. I don't teach science. I teach.

I don't run across gentle and cruel much in physics. Science tends to be less subjective than you imply.

 

You still haven't quantified your terms

This is true. Formal science quite often disowns truths, such as terms like "gentle," which is very physical. Formal science disregards such things as "cruelty," in terms of such things as those bacteria that are at enmity with nature.

I don't run across gentle and cruel much in physics. Science tends to be less subjective than you imply.

 

You still haven't quantified your terms

As I've said, I'm a dreamer, not a scientist or mathematician.

Uh huh. And who do you think made the most mistakes? Giants like Einstein and Newton, or your run of the mill "scientists?" I think the former ones weren't afraid to challenge conventions, and made the most mistakes.

Uh huh. And who do you think made the most mistakes? Giants like Einstein and Newton, or your run of the mill "scientists?" I think the former ones weren't afraid to challenge conventions, and made the most mistakes.

And believe me, my aim is not to be a scientist. My aim is wisdom. I prefer ministry, hands down, to science. Actually I prefer music to science, or a good meal. I prefer far better things than science.

The main thing I wanted to say is that nighttime is a shadow, and the universe is much richer in lighting than we seem to understand.

Good, maybe you can work on the rest that others have pointed out to you.

Unfortunately, I'm the only one bold enough here to challenge conventions. Everywhere else, majority holds sway. Fortunately, I'm not obligated to you.

Wisdom comes from acknowledging mistakes; you have yet to do this.

Actually, I have:

 

Okay. I am probably mistaken concerning the darkened part of the moon being due to the earth's shadow. Still, darkness is always a shadow of minor magnitude, compared to a prevailing light. We see shadows from small objects on the earth, we understand the earth has it's shadow where there is night, and the moon likewise. We know that the region very distant around the earth and moon is very bright, whether we view the sky during the daytime or night, because even late at night the moon is very bright. The moon, of necessity, keeps where it is visible from under the earth's shadow.

 

If darkness predominates part of the daily cycle, and light the other part, but the relatively distant moon is still very well lit the entire night, then light dominates. Nighttime is a very mere dome.

 

 

The strongest shadow is called the "umbra". The lesser shadow is called the "penumbra".

 

Neither of these can really be called a dome.

Thank you. Regardless, however we've measured and calculated these regions, it actually correlates more like the color spectrum. We only measure bit-by-bit. But it's actually a spectrum, not a stratum. However we measure the umbra and penumbra, the effect from the view under a massive shadow is a ceiling. A pointed measurement is irrelevant to the effect. A shadow is not stratified but has soft transition. We're not accustomed to thinking in terms of being under a shadow the propensity of nighttime.

 

 

Is that supposed to be an insight?

You're supposed to assume, always due, from the context.

Science is cute but wisdom has authority. The sun and moon are governors.

Darkness is not always due to shadow, but can also be just due to there being nothing to direct light to our eyes. The Sunlit side of the Moon is bright because it reflects the Sunlight hitting it to our eyes. The side away from the Sun is dark because it is not being struck by the Sun and is in the Moon's own shadow. The night sky is,( on the most part) dark because there isn't enough stuff out there to reflect sufficient sunlight back to our eyes( Notable exceptions are those planets which reflect enough light to appear as points of light).

When a room is perfectly enclosed, without an internal source of light, it is very dark, even during daytime. It seems that light is absent but the fact remains, you're under a shadow. Introduce a candle, but imagine it suspended in the enclosed room the size of a stadium. If your back was turned to the candle, you're going to have the same quality of light as you would with something to reflect against. Something to reflect against would merely be the prominent thing in the room. The only ways to make it more dark in the room is to either diminish the light source or to come under another shadow. Removing the thing reflecting the light does not diminish the room's illumination. Darkness is due to shadow.

If the terms being used are not scientific, they are not scientific in terms of very modern science. Natural science uses natural terms, like "earth," "gentle," or "cruel." True science is merely pondering nature, in any reasonable terms. It didn't begin technically. Scientific folk should still contemplate nature in natural terms, making use of technical terms when useful. I for one, study nature, and science; but primarily I live. The arts supersede the technical aspects. And I shouldn't apologize for that.

 

!

Moderator Note

You aren't communicating your ideas very well. Most of this thread is people asking what you're talking about, and you insisting you're making perfect sense.

 

Part of the problem is your mis-use of terminology. What do you mean by "strongest darkness"? How is the "strength" of darkness measured? Also, people have asked you what you mean by "dome". If you're going to use your own terms, you need to be able to explain them to people who are used to scientific terms.

 

Also, when someone asks you to explain something, it helps nobody for you to say, "I've answered your objection elsewhere". Obviously, you haven't, or they wouldn't have asked for you to explain it again.

 

And please lose the attitude. The others in this discussion want some clarity, you're using unfamiliar terms, so have some patience and please aim for more clarity and rigor. No need to respond to this note in thread, just help us understand what you're talking about.

Okay, point by point:

Strongest darkness: the primary shadow cast by a convex earth--from a point of view under the shadow--will be convex, tapering to a lesser, more dispersed shadow, looking outward. We're accustomed, and our scientific laws reflect, shadows cast against objects. Here, we're talking about shadows cast away from the object, from a view within the shadow, not from without. Key distinction.

[okay, no more reply to this moderator note.]

 

 

Hypotheses need to be testable. How would you test your idea?

 

 

Can you be clearer what you mean by "the dome". I assume you mean the shadow created by the Earth. Which is why I said that is the cause of lunar eclipses. (Which you seem to agree with.)

 

The phases of the moon are not caused by the Earth's shadow. They are simply because part of the Moon's surface is not illuminated by the Sun.

Okay. I am probably mistaken concerning the darkened part of the moon being due to the earth's shadow. Still, darkness is always a shadow of minor magnitude, compared to a prevailing light. We see shadows from small objects on the earth, we understand the earth has it's shadow where there is night, and the moon likewise. We know that the region very distant around the earth and moon is very bright, whether we view the sky during the daytime or night, because even late at night the moon is very bright. The moon, of necessity, keeps where it is visible from under the earth's shadow.

If darkness predominates part of the daily cycle, and light the other part, but the relatively distant moon is still very well lit the entire night, then light dominates. Nighttime is a very mere dome.

 

 

I assume the "dome" you refer to is the shadow of the Earth that you described in the previous post. It is actually a cone, rather than a dome (as some simple geometry will show).

 

In which case, you seem to be talking about an eclipse, rather than the phases of the Moon. The phases of the Moon are caused by the fact that, as you described above, it is a small ball illuminated by a large light (the Sun) and so the other side of it is shadowed.

The strongest darkness is a dome. The shadow would taper off somewhat cone-like. And I've answered your latter objection elsewhere.

 

 

I assume the "dome" you refer to is the shadow of the Earth that you described in the previous post. It is actually a cone, rather than a dome (as some simple geometry will show).

 

In which case, you seem to be talking about an eclipse, rather than the phases of the Moon. The phases of the Moon are caused by the fact that, as you described above, it is a small ball illuminated by a large light (the Sun) and so the other side of it is shadowed.

The very dark part of the shadow is a dome. The shadow will taper off somewhat cone-like.

And no, an eclipse is a specific junction of the moon with the apex of the dome, as I've stated severally, or between the apex and the point of the cone.

Well, we don't want to go off topic, but 'truth' is not normally what one is looking for in science. One is looking for models and testing how well they agree with nature.

 

Anyway, as I said, we know that night and day is explained by the Earth's rotation; we know that the Moon reflects light from the Sun; we know that there are plenty of photons in the Universe from all sorts of sources and wavelengths (taking into accound Doppler shift when needed).

 

So, what is it that you want to discuss?

"Science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding." --Einstein on "Truth" (much more on truth in science, by Einstein)

You said -- I know that the images are inferior to what they are in truth.

 

How is this a hypothesis?

 

You need to think about making the statement less subjective and less philosophical.

 

Think about 'inferior' and 'truth' in a scientific context.

 

 

It seems you have nothing to actually test.

 

 

 

We do indeed. But the statements should be scientific, or at least very close to being so (ideas get reshaped as work goes on).

 

 

I don't understand what this has to do with the discussion.

As I said, I have time for genuine folks.

It is not the subject, but the content that defines if we are discussing science or not. So far, you have basically attempted to describe the phases of the Moon (see the diagram above) and made some stange statement about light in the Universe.

 

 

 

I have no idea where this has come from, nor do I see what it has to do with this thread.

Does my "strange statement" not "qualify" as a hypothesis? I do hope we do still use hypotheses in this new and improved science. The problem is ancient. Conventional people prefer conventional thinking.

 

 

Exactly. So that cannot be the cause of the phases of the Moon as you suggest.

No, lunar eclipse occurs when the moon is at one precise point of the dome. This occurs every few months or so somewhere on earth. It rarely occurs from a given point of view. Lunar eclipse is simply the full moon occurring precisely at the apex of the dome. Full moon rarely occurs precisely at the apex. Full moon usually occurs anywhere else along the dome.

 

 

Those images are "beyond the hard white light".

 

 

That is an eclipse of the Moon, not the phases of the Moon.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_eclipse

No, in eclipse, the moon is always either precisely between the sun and the earth, or precisely at the apex of the earth's dome. Also, in the latter case, the moon would be in the transitional area from dark, to dim, to light.

You know that most of those images are false colour?

I know that the images are inferior to what they are in truth.

We all agree, there are other sources of electromagnetic radiation in the Universe besides our Sun.

 

Is there any science you wish to disucss, or is this all more 'artistic' or 'philosophical'?

Since when are discussions about natural phenomenon regarding natural satellites, not science? Of course, since so-called "modern" science. Let's just teach the kids to not ponder in science! That's real smart!

 

 

The far side (from Earth) may be light or dark.

 

This is just wrong. A partial Moon appears that way because (as you said earlier) it is a small ball illuminated from one side by the Sun.

The part of the moon intersecting the earth's dome is distinct from the dome on the moon. Imagine a beach ball as earth and a ping pong ball as the moon beside the earth. Each has it's own shadow. But if the ping pong ball intersected the beach ball's dome, [it's intersection]* would model the moon when viewed from beneath the beach ball's dome of night. Of course, a room, and the balls aren't the best environment to test in. It wouldn't be uniform with the solar system.

*[not it's intersection, the area of the ping pong ball above the intersection that's still viewable from under the dome]

 

 

These galaxies are far beyond the light of the Sun, so I am not sure what your point is.

That's my point. Beyond the harsh white light, there's much richer lighting. But far superior to our images.

 

 

It is only "brilliant" on one side. The other side is unlit. (Don't forget, several nations have sent probes to orbit the Moon.)

When the moon is full, it's brilliant all around because it's above the dome. When the moon is partial, It's brilliant except where it is darkened by the dome.

 

Define well-lit. Earth is a poor reference for this, because we are fairly close to a light source. Much of the universe is not, and the brightness drops off with the square of the distance.

I'm sure that most of us here have seen images of the varieties of colored systems, such as the galaxies, and the vast physical phenomena of the heavens. We're most familiar with bright, white light. But the universe is much richer with light. These images in themselves are majestic. How much more majesty should we expect the further we venture beyond the harsh light of the sun? How much richer was your experience breathing in the fresh air of protected regions of the earth than when you viewed an image of our globe? Sunlight as well as darkness mask multitudes of details, whether darkness is the shadow cast by the earth, or another shallow dome over a much grander surface.

Well, we don't want to go off topic, but 'truth' is not normally what one is looking for in science. One is looking for models and testing how well they agree with nature.

 

Anyway, as I said, we know that night and day is explained by the Earth's rotation; we know that the Moon reflects light from the Sun; we know that there are plenty of photons in the Universe from all sorts of sources and wavelengths (taking into accound Doppler shift when needed).

 

So, what is it that you want to discuss?

Why should we assume the space around the moon is dim or dark when the moon is so brilliant at night? It's brilliance proves otherwise.