wazua Tue, May 5, 2026
Welcome Guest Search | Active Topics | Log In

7 Pages«<4567>
Questions that no one knows answers to
Muriel
#51 Posted : Friday, August 22, 2014 12:15:42 PM
Rank: Member

Joined: 11/19/2009
Posts: 3,142
Wakanyugi wrote:
Muriel wrote:
D32 wrote:
A thought or question that always fascinates me is regarding the physical composition of the universe.

First of all, I marvel at the magnitude of the universe, of course relative to what the mind can comprehend, as so far, the size of the universe is limited by our ability to comprehend it.

Now the question, does the physical universe have a physical end? An edge?

Another question, what is the smallest unit / size of space?




Then the earth is really a tiny tiny spec. Yours is a question that provokes more thought and wonder than one 'scientists' entire contribution.

Indeed, any answer we give is informed not by our perception, (no, that is the crippled science of scientists) but by our understanding and comprehension of it.

As to the question if the physical universe has a physical edge, I think a good place to start looking or hunting is the Orion's belt.


Hi Muriel,

Can you please explain this to me?




Hello Wakanyugi,

I am sorry you are interested in my comment. I really am because now I have to explain it. I am sure D32 understands what it is about so I just mentioned it in passing not expecting a follow up question.

Anyway, it has got to do with the creator. It is a bright spot in the dark heavens. There is more to it than meets the eye. Of course if you were to go there, you would pass the individual stars one after another.

'Scientists' will tell you that the brightness and different colours if 'it' are due to 'gas'. 'Gas' in the vacuum of space! d'oh! There is more to 'Orions Belt' than we are told.
Wakanyugi
#52 Posted : Friday, August 22, 2014 2:07:00 PM
Rank: Veteran

Joined: 7/3/2007
Posts: 1,635
Muriel wrote:
Wakanyugi wrote:
Muriel wrote:
D32 wrote:
A thought or question that always fascinates me is regarding the physical composition of the universe.

First of all, I marvel at the magnitude of the universe, of course relative to what the mind can comprehend, as so far, the size of the universe is limited by our ability to comprehend it.

Now the question, does the physical universe have a physical end? An edge?

Another question, what is the smallest unit / size of space?




Then the earth is really a tiny tiny spec. Yours is a question that provokes more thought and wonder than one 'scientists' entire contribution.

Indeed, any answer we give is informed not by our perception, (no, that is the crippled science of scientists) but by our understanding and comprehension of it.

As to the question if the physical universe has a physical edge, I think a good place to start looking or hunting is the Orion's belt.


Hi Muriel,

Can you please explain this to me?




Hello Wakanyugi,

I am sorry you are interested in my comment. I really am because now I have to explain it. I am sure D32 understands what it is about so I just mentioned it in passing not expecting a follow up question.

Anyway, it has got to do with the creator. It is a bright spot in the dark heavens. There is more to it than meets the eye. Of course if you were to go there, you would pass the individual stars one after another.

'Scientists' will tell you that the brightness and different colours if 'it' are due to 'gas'. 'Gas' in the vacuum of space! d'oh! There is more to 'Orions Belt' than we are told.


Now you got me even more interested. Do you have reference to some material I can read?
"The opposite of a correct statement is a false statement. But the opposite of a profound truth may well be another profound truth." (Niels Bohr)
Wakanyugi
#53 Posted : Friday, August 22, 2014 2:31:27 PM
Rank: Veteran

Joined: 7/3/2007
Posts: 1,635
D32 wrote:
Wakanyugi wrote:
D32 wrote:
Wakanyugi wrote:
masukuma wrote:
mimi nangoja answers.... watu nikuchapa domo tu wanachapa hapa!


Masukuma, let me try.

Some questions are not properly 'ask-able' because the language or the premises used simply limit the kind of answer you can ever get.

The question about the origin of the Universe is one such. The premise behind this question is that the Universe exists within a space-time framework, and therefore would have an origin and an end.

The reality is different, however. Time and space are 'effects' generated by the observer (us) perhaps in an attempt to understand the Universe. The Universe does not exist within time and space and is not subject to them, in fact just the reverse.

The proof?: 'if the Universe contained only one object, there would be no time or space.' We, the observers, are the ones who interpret the relationships between different objects (and locations) as space and the one between different change events (dominated by entropy) as time.

They do NOT really exist.

The Universe therefore can not have an origin or an end. It simply 'is.'


Hi there,

I think that your "proof" cannot proof your point, (that there is no time and space), as all physical objects (even if the universe had one object) exists in a volume of space, at a particular moment.


Not so...it is not the Universe that exists within time and space. It is time and space that exist within the Universe, to the point where we insist that these effects are real. And the 'proof' I cited is just a tip of the iceberg as it were.

But lets pursue your argument. If the Universe contained only one object (as we are told it did before the big bang) how could there be space and time?

Secondly if there was no observer, how could there be time and space, seeing as these are effects directly tied to our ability, through our senses and consciousness, to perceive and interpret relationships between 'things'?


I think that I understand what is causing us to differ. We hold two opposing world views. My world view is that the universe had a beginning, while yours is that the universe does not have a beginning, that it has always been in existence.

The point of contention was in regards to time and space. In order for each of our world views to be supported, the nature of time and space has to adopt one world view or the other, not both.

In my world view, time and space encapsulates the universe, while with your world view, the universe encapsulates the "perceived" time and space.

The reason that your world view requires the universe to encapsulate time and space, is that in order for the universe to NOT have a beginning, there has to be NO time, it's existence has to be at a place where there is no time, hence your explanation of time and space being our perceptions, in our attempt to interpret what we are seeing and experiencing.

Quoting you: "The Universe does not exist within time and space and is not subject to them, in fact just the reverse."

For my world view, in order for the universe to begin, time has to exist to mark the beginning of the universe's existence, as the universe cannot "begin", if not in time.

Until our world views are in sync, our perceptions of time and space will differ.

The deeper or next question then will be "Which of the two world views is true?" After all, both cannot be true.

Then another question that follows the just asked question is "Will we ever know the answer to the question of which world view is true?"

The answer to the last question is "Yes", if my world view is true, or "No" if your world view is true.

The reason for "No" if your world view is true, is that once we die, that's it. The universe will just continue, we were but a mere moment, in contrary, the reason for "Yes" if my world view is true, is that even if we die, our maker will resurrect us all in one of two resurrections.

And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation. John 5:29

How one chooses to live relative to the moral law, will be what will determine the eternal fate of an individual. In essence, we choose our eternal destiny by our everyday decisions.

The encounter with the creator during the resurrection will be proof that God is real, that the universe has it's creator, that the universe has rules to live by, that the universe had a beginning, but it will be too late if one resurrected in the resurrection of damnation.

In explaining my world view, speaking about the Creator was inevitable.


Thank you for the detailed response. Quite impressive, although I must admit you lost me a bit at John 5:29. No matter.

I'll not try to argue my World view as I believe the evidence for a 'no space-time' Universe is fairly persuasive.

As to the point that one of us has to be right, am sorry but you are arguing an absolute position here. As I have maintained before (and no one has proved me wrong yet) our Universe, as it is set up, does not seem to permit absolutes. In other words, we seem to exist in a Universe where everything is possible and relative, subject only to our capacity as observers to perceive and interpret. Therefore, as long as the possibility exists that one or both of us could be wrong, you can not argue an absolute position (that one of us has to be right and the other wrong).

I know of know idea or principle or law etc, that has been proven beyond the point of possible falsifiability. Not even in mathematics. Of course this position is not new or unique (see for instance, the Schrodinger wave equation)

Finally back to your world view (Universe view actually). If the Universe has a beginning, what was there before it started?

How big is the Universe then? Is it as big as the 'edges' we can perceive with our instrument aided senses or bigger?
"The opposite of a correct statement is a false statement. But the opposite of a profound truth may well be another profound truth." (Niels Bohr)
Wakanyugi
#54 Posted : Friday, August 22, 2014 2:43:05 PM
Rank: Veteran

Joined: 7/3/2007
Posts: 1,635
tycho wrote:
@D32, I don't think the two Worldviews are any different. At least when put in action one can't tell the difference.



"The Universe had a beginning, and therefore will have an end"

"The Universe had no beginning and therefore will never end."

Actually you are right Tycho. both world views are learning on the idea of time (and indirectly) space, being real. The pervasive language problem again.

I think the correct point is not a beginning or not.

The Universe is.

With a qualifier that the word 'is' does not imply time.
"The opposite of a correct statement is a false statement. But the opposite of a profound truth may well be another profound truth." (Niels Bohr)
Muriel
#55 Posted : Friday, August 22, 2014 4:59:34 PM
Rank: Member

Joined: 11/19/2009
Posts: 3,142
Wakanyugi wrote:
Muriel wrote:
Wakanyugi wrote:
Muriel wrote:
D32 wrote:
A thought or question that always fascinates me is regarding the physical composition of the universe.

First of all, I marvel at the magnitude of the universe, of course relative to what the mind can comprehend, as so far, the size of the universe is limited by our ability to comprehend it.

Now the question, does the physical universe have a physical end? An edge?

Another question, what is the smallest unit / size of space?




Then the earth is really a tiny tiny spec. Yours is a question that provokes more thought and wonder than one 'scientists' entire contribution.

Indeed, any answer we give is informed not by our perception, (no, that is the crippled science of scientists) but by our understanding and comprehension of it.

As to the question if the physical universe has a physical edge, I think a good place to start looking or hunting is the Orion's belt.


Hi Muriel,

Can you please explain this to me?




Hello Wakanyugi,

I am sorry you are interested in my comment. I really am because now I have to explain it. I am sure D32 understands what it is about so I just mentioned it in passing not expecting a follow up question.

Anyway, it has got to do with the creator. It is a bright spot in the dark heavens. There is more to it than meets the eye. Of course if you were to go there, you would pass the individual stars one after another.

'Scientists' will tell you that the brightness and different colours if 'it' are due to 'gas'. 'Gas' in the vacuum of space! d'oh! There is more to 'Orions Belt' than we are told.


Now you got me even more interested. Do you have reference to some material I can read?


Woe is me! How I now regret!
Laugh!
Laugh!
Laugh!

Anyway, I must have an answer.

However, first let me rest - seeing that my time to rest is fast approaching - and you have given me homework to do!

I will 'dig up' something as I rest. See you next week.
D32
#56 Posted : Friday, August 22, 2014 6:22:49 PM
Rank: Member

Joined: 2/16/2012
Posts: 808
Muriel wrote:
Wakanyugi wrote:
Muriel wrote:
Wakanyugi wrote:
Muriel wrote:
D32 wrote:
A thought or question that always fascinates me is regarding the physical composition of the universe.

First of all, I marvel at the magnitude of the universe, of course relative to what the mind can comprehend, as so far, the size of the universe is limited by our ability to comprehend it.

Now the question, does the physical universe have a physical end? An edge?

Another question, what is the smallest unit / size of space?




Then the earth is really a tiny tiny spec. Yours is a question that provokes more thought and wonder than one 'scientists' entire contribution.

Indeed, any answer we give is informed not by our perception, (no, that is the crippled science of scientists) but by our understanding and comprehension of it.

As to the question if the physical universe has a physical edge, I think a good place to start looking or hunting is the Orion's belt.


Hi Muriel,

Can you please explain this to me?




Hello Wakanyugi,

I am sorry you are interested in my comment. I really am because now I have to explain it. I am sure D32 understands what it is about so I just mentioned it in passing not expecting a follow up question.

Anyway, it has got to do with the creator. It is a bright spot in the dark heavens. There is more to it than meets the eye. Of course if you were to go there, you would pass the individual stars one after another.

'Scientists' will tell you that the brightness and different colours if 'it' are due to 'gas'. 'Gas' in the vacuum of space! d'oh! There is more to 'Orions Belt' than we are told.


Now you got me even more interested. Do you have reference to some material I can read?


Woe is me! How I now regret!
Laugh!
Laugh!
Laugh!

Anyway, I must have an answer.

However, first let me rest - seeing that my time to rest is fast approaching - and you have given me homework to do!

I will 'dig up' something as I rest. See you next week.


@Muriel I know exactly what you're talking about! EW 41 smile

BTW, I never thought of connecting the edge that way.

Will also give a shot at explaining.
They tried to bury us, they didn't know we were seeds.
D32
#57 Posted : Friday, August 22, 2014 6:32:01 PM
Rank: Member

Joined: 2/16/2012
Posts: 808
Wakanyugi wrote:
D32 wrote:
Wakanyugi wrote:
D32 wrote:
Wakanyugi wrote:
masukuma wrote:
mimi nangoja answers.... watu nikuchapa domo tu wanachapa hapa!


Masukuma, let me try.

Some questions are not properly 'ask-able' because the language or the premises used simply limit the kind of answer you can ever get.

The question about the origin of the Universe is one such. The premise behind this question is that the Universe exists within a space-time framework, and therefore would have an origin and an end.

The reality is different, however. Time and space are 'effects' generated by the observer (us) perhaps in an attempt to understand the Universe. The Universe does not exist within time and space and is not subject to them, in fact just the reverse.

The proof?: 'if the Universe contained only one object, there would be no time or space.' We, the observers, are the ones who interpret the relationships between different objects (and locations) as space and the one between different change events (dominated by entropy) as time.

They do NOT really exist.

The Universe therefore can not have an origin or an end. It simply 'is.'


Hi there,

I think that your "proof" cannot proof your point, (that there is no time and space), as all physical objects (even if the universe had one object) exists in a volume of space, at a particular moment.


Not so...it is not the Universe that exists within time and space. It is time and space that exist within the Universe, to the point where we insist that these effects are real. And the 'proof' I cited is just a tip of the iceberg as it were.

But lets pursue your argument. If the Universe contained only one object (as we are told it did before the big bang) how could there be space and time?

Secondly if there was no observer, how could there be time and space, seeing as these are effects directly tied to our ability, through our senses and consciousness, to perceive and interpret relationships between 'things'?


I think that I understand what is causing us to differ. We hold two opposing world views. My world view is that the universe had a beginning, while yours is that the universe does not have a beginning, that it has always been in existence.

The point of contention was in regards to time and space. In order for each of our world views to be supported, the nature of time and space has to adopt one world view or the other, not both.

In my world view, time and space encapsulates the universe, while with your world view, the universe encapsulates the "perceived" time and space.

The reason that your world view requires the universe to encapsulate time and space, is that in order for the universe to NOT have a beginning, there has to be NO time, it's existence has to be at a place where there is no time, hence your explanation of time and space being our perceptions, in our attempt to interpret what we are seeing and experiencing.

Quoting you: "The Universe does not exist within time and space and is not subject to them, in fact just the reverse."

For my world view, in order for the universe to begin, time has to exist to mark the beginning of the universe's existence, as the universe cannot "begin", if not in time.

Until our world views are in sync, our perceptions of time and space will differ.

The deeper or next question then will be "Which of the two world views is true?" After all, both cannot be true.

Then another question that follows the just asked question is "Will we ever know the answer to the question of which world view is true?"

The answer to the last question is "Yes", if my world view is true, or "No" if your world view is true.

The reason for "No" if your world view is true, is that once we die, that's it. The universe will just continue, we were but a mere moment, in contrary, the reason for "Yes" if my world view is true, is that even if we die, our maker will resurrect us all in one of two resurrections.

And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation. John 5:29

How one chooses to live relative to the moral law, will be what will determine the eternal fate of an individual. In essence, we choose our eternal destiny by our everyday decisions.

The encounter with the creator during the resurrection will be proof that God is real, that the universe has it's creator, that the universe has rules to live by, that the universe had a beginning, but it will be too late if one resurrected in the resurrection of damnation.

In explaining my world view, speaking about the Creator was inevitable.


Thank you for the detailed response. Quite impressive, although I must admit you lost me a bit at John 5:29. No matter.

I'll not try to argue my World view as I believe the evidence for a 'no space-time' Universe is fairly persuasive.

As to the point that one of us has to be right, am sorry but you are arguing an absolute position here. As I have maintained before (and no one has proved me wrong yet) our Universe, as it is set up, does not seem to permit absolutes. In other words, we seem to exist in a Universe where everything is possible and relative, subject only to our capacity as observers to perceive and interpret. Therefore, as long as the possibility exists that one or both of us could be wrong, you can not argue an absolute position (that one of us has to be right and the other wrong).

I know of know idea or principle or law etc, that has been proven beyond the point of possible falsifiability. Not even in mathematics. Of course this position is not new or unique (see for instance, the Schrodinger wave equation)

Finally back to your world view (Universe view actually). If the Universe has a beginning, what was there before it started?

How big is the Universe then? Is it as big as the 'edges' we can perceive with our instrument aided senses or bigger?


Will respond.
They tried to bury us, they didn't know we were seeds.
Muriel
#58 Posted : Monday, August 25, 2014 12:07:15 PM
Rank: Member

Joined: 11/19/2009
Posts: 3,142
D32 wrote:
Muriel wrote:
Wakanyugi wrote:
Muriel wrote:
Wakanyugi wrote:
Muriel wrote:


Then the earth is really a tiny tiny spec. Yours is a question that provokes more thought and wonder than one 'scientists' entire contribution.

Indeed, any answer we give is informed not by our perception, (no, that is the crippled science of scientists) but by our understanding and comprehension of it.

As to the question if the physical universe has a physical edge, I think a good place to start looking or hunting is the Orion's belt.


Hi Muriel,

Can you please explain this to me?




Hello Wakanyugi,

I am sorry you are interested in my comment. I really am because now I have to explain it. I am sure D32 understands what it is about so I just mentioned it in passing not expecting a follow up question.

Anyway, it has got to do with the creator. It is a bright spot in the dark heavens. There is more to it than meets the eye. Of course if you were to go there, you would pass the individual stars one after another.

'Scientists' will tell you that the brightness and different colours if 'it' are due to 'gas'. 'Gas' in the vacuum of space! d'oh! There is more to 'Orions Belt' than we are told.


Now you got me even more interested. Do you have reference to some material I can read?


Woe is me! How I now regret!
Laugh!
Laugh!
Laugh!

Anyway, I must have an answer.

However, first let me rest - seeing that my time to rest is fast approaching - and you have given me homework to do!

I will 'dig up' something as I rest. See you next week.


@Muriel I know exactly what you're talking about! EW 41 smile

BTW, I never thought of connecting the edge that way.

Will also give a shot at explaining.


Absolutely, D32. smile smile

So I went a-digging as I promised Wakanyugi.

Orion is noted in Job 9 and Amos 5 as having been 'made' and in Job 39 as having been bound (by implication).

Some one had earlier mentioned that there is a 'space' in the orion from which they asserted that very interesting stuff will come.

This perspective of Orion nebula is in harmony with recordings by Hubble which has recorded a 'cavity' or 'bowl-like-form' within the orion nebula (of course scientists have inserted in their narration terminologies such as 'gas' 'hydrogen' 'dust' 'energy' 'stellar winds' etc). This 'cavity' is the same as what that someone said was a 'space'.


Video: Hubble Minute: Hubble Snaps the Clearest View of the Orion Nebula


The fact is within Orion nebula (and beyond it) there is something or there are some things. And the 'cavity' or 'space' or 'bowl-like-form' is a gateway to somewhere. That is my understanding.

To me I can narrate it thus:

This world is a tiny pin-head within a bigger hollow 'sphere' - like inside a 'ball'. This 'ball' is perhaps round and definitely huge and also has many stars and other planets floating inside it. This 'ball' also has a 'valve' (much like balls have a valve through which air is blown) and this 'valve' is the 'space' or 'cavity' or 'bowl-like-form' of the orion nebula.

So a valve to where? In due time we will see and hear.
D32
#59 Posted : Monday, August 25, 2014 4:39:29 PM
Rank: Member

Joined: 2/16/2012
Posts: 808
Muriel wrote:
D32 wrote:
Muriel wrote:
Wakanyugi wrote:
Muriel wrote:
Wakanyugi wrote:
Muriel wrote:


Then the earth is really a tiny tiny spec. Yours is a question that provokes more thought and wonder than one 'scientists' entire contribution.

Indeed, any answer we give is informed not by our perception, (no, that is the crippled science of scientists) but by our understanding and comprehension of it.

As to the question if the physical universe has a physical edge, I think a good place to start looking or hunting is the Orion's belt.


Hi Muriel,

Can you please explain this to me?




Hello Wakanyugi,

I am sorry you are interested in my comment. I really am because now I have to explain it. I am sure D32 understands what it is about so I just mentioned it in passing not expecting a follow up question.

Anyway, it has got to do with the creator. It is a bright spot in the dark heavens. There is more to it than meets the eye. Of course if you were to go there, you would pass the individual stars one after another.

'Scientists' will tell you that the brightness and different colours if 'it' are due to 'gas'. 'Gas' in the vacuum of space! d'oh! There is more to 'Orions Belt' than we are told.


Now you got me even more interested. Do you have reference to some material I can read?


Woe is me! How I now regret!
Laugh!
Laugh!
Laugh!

Anyway, I must have an answer.

However, first let me rest - seeing that my time to rest is fast approaching - and you have given me homework to do!

I will 'dig up' something as I rest. See you next week.


@Muriel I know exactly what you're talking about! EW 41 smile

BTW, I never thought of connecting the edge that way.

Will also give a shot at explaining.


Absolutely, D32. smile smile

So I went a-digging as I promised Wakanyugi.

Orion is noted in Job 9 and Amos 5 as having been 'made' and in Job 39 as having been bound (by implication).

Some one had earlier mentioned that there is a 'space' in the orion from which they asserted that very interesting stuff will come.

This perspective of Orion nebula is in harmony with recordings by Hubble which has recorded a 'cavity' or 'bowl-like-form' within the orion nebula (of course scientists have inserted in their narration terminologies such as 'gas' 'hydrogen' 'dust' 'energy' 'stellar winds' etc). This 'cavity' is the same as what that someone said was a 'space'.


Video: Hubble Minute: Hubble Snaps the Clearest View of the Orion Nebula


The fact is within Orion nebula (and beyond it) there is something or there are some things. And the 'cavity' or 'space' or 'bowl-like-form' is a gateway to somewhere. That is my understanding.

To me I can narrate it thus:

This world is a tiny pin-head within a bigger hollow 'sphere' - like inside a 'ball'. This 'ball' is perhaps round and definitely huge and also has many stars and other planets floating inside it. This 'ball' also has a 'valve' (much like balls have a valve through which air is blown) and this 'valve' is the 'space' or 'cavity' or 'bowl-like-form' of the orion nebula.

So a valve to where? In due time we will see and hear.


It is important to note that, the idea that there is more to the Orion than meets the eye, is a christian concept.

Before picking it up from where @Muriel left it, let's explore on some fascinating things that Scripture has to say about astronomy.

It was not until a couple of hundred BC that scholars started proposing and figuring out that the Earth was round.

500 BC, Pythagoras proposed a spherical earth purely on aesthetic grounds.
400 BC, Plato espoused a spherical earth in his 4th and final dialogue Phaedo, giving it wider circulation.
384-322 BC Aristotle also proposed a spherical earth on geometric grounds, but backed up his assertion with physical evidence (described in his On the Heavens of 350BC[4.1])

- Persons living in southern lands see southern constellations higher above the horizon than those living in northern lands.

- The shadow of the Earth on the Moon during a lunar eclipse is round.

- The fact that objects fall to Earth towards its center means that if it were constructed of small bits of matter originally, these parts would naturally settle into a spherical shape.

- Aristotle's demonstration was so compelling that a spherical Earth was the central assumption of all subsequent philosophers of the Classical era (up to ~300 AD).

- He also used the curved phases of the moon to argue that the Moon must also be a sphere like the Earth.

It was already revealed in scripture that the Earth was round.

Isaiah 40:22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth


Some extras

The shape of the Earth being known, the next question was, what is the size of the Earth? And how do you measure it? With what tools?

Eratosthenes (276 BC-194 BC) was a Greek mathematician, geographer and astronomer, who was the first person to measure the size of the Earth.

How he did it: http://www.juliantrubin....igten/eratosthenes.html


In past history, different cultures have held different myths or beliefs about the Earth. With the knowledge that we now have, we consider those beliefs as absurd. E.g. Some believed that the Earth was being supported by four giant elephants, which were on a giant turtle. The Greeks believed that Atlas supported the Earth on his shoulder.





Well, it was already revealed in scripture that:

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



Job 38:31 Canst thou bind the sweet influences of Pleiades, or loose the bands of Orion?
Job 38:32 Canst thou bring forth Mazzaroth in his season? or canst thou guide Arcturus with his sons?

These two texts are referring to the constellations of Pleiades, Orion and Arcturus. Mazzaroth is unknown, but different people claim it to be different things.

God is showing Job how mighty He is.

"Canst thou bind the sweet influences of Pleiades"



Science discovered that the Pleiades (Also known as the seven sisters) constellations, are bound together, moving in one direction.

Quoting

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pleiades

"The Reverend John Michell calculated in 1767 that the probability of a chance alignment of so many bright stars was only 1 in 500,000, and so correctly surmised that the Pleiades and many other clusters of stars must be physically related.[12] When studies were first made of the stars' proper motions, it was found that they are all moving in the same direction across the sky, at the same rate, further demonstrating that they were related."

Quoting Dr. Robert Julius Trumpler

"Over 25,000 individual measures of the Pleiades stars are now available, and their study led to the important discovery that the whole cluster is moving in a southeasterly direction. The Pleiades stars may thus be compared to a swarm of birds, flying together to a distant goal. This leaves no doubt that the Pleiades are not a temporary or accidental agglomeration of stars, but a system in which the stars are bound together by a close kinship."

Below, a simulation of Pleiades's movement. The reason why there are two images is because the two images together form a 3D image, allowing you to see depth. To view the 3D image, you will need place your face about a foot from the screen, then cross your eyes while viewing the image. Once you've crossed your eyes, you should see a third image show up between the two. Concetrate on the center image. To get a clear focus, adjust the crossing of your eyes and / or the distance from the screen.



God continues to show his greatness. In contrast to binding the Pleiades or "loose the bands of Orion".

The Orion is one of the most notable sights in the night sky, as it has the distinctive three stars "the belt".





The "bands of Orion" is the Orion belt. The Orion belt is made up of two stars "Alnilam", and "Mintaka" and a star cluster called "Alnitak"

Astronomers have discovered that the stars in the Orion belt are not held together like those of the Pleiades, instead, they are moving apart from each other at high speed, hence "loose the bands of Orion"

"canst thou guide Arcturus with his sons?"



Arcturus is flying through the Milky Way, as if having a mind of it's own. It is not flying in the general direction as the rest of the stars.

In 1971, scientists discovered there are other stars that are moving with Arcturus. These other stars are known as the Arcturus stream (As written in scripture, "Arcturus with his sons").

"Arcturus is cutting perpendicularly through the galactic disk at a tremendous rate of speed – some 150 kilometers per second."

"Arcturus is not moving with the general stream of stars in the flat disk of our Milky Way galaxy. Instead, it is cutting perpendicularly through the galactic disk."

Quoted from: http://earthsky.org/brig...e-big-dipper-to-find-it

Amazing at how ancient men wrote thousands of years ago things that science are just now proving. Surely they did not come up with these things, a more plausible explanations is in 2 Timothy 3:16 "All scripture is given by inspiration of God..."

Now back to the edge of the universe and the Orion.

The term "the heavens were opened" is very common in scripture. Consider that term as an opening of a portal in our universe, connecting us with heaven.

Examples

Ezekiel 1:1 Now it came to pass in the thirtieth year, in the fourth month, in the fifth day of the month, as I was among the captives by the river of Chebar, that the heavens were opened, and I saw visions of God.

Matthew 3:16,17 And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him: 3:17 And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

Acts 7:56 And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God.

So, "heaven opening" is very common, after all, how are beings supposed to transverse between Heaven and our universe, except if there is an opening? Or a portal?

Speaking about the second coming... Revelation 19:11 And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war.

Now that we have established that the idea of "heaven opening" being a common occurrence in scripture, as well as it being something that will need to take place at the second coming, the question that remains is, at the second coming, where will that opening be?

Some Christians believe that portal is contained or will open somewhere in the Orion. One of the reasons for this belief is in Isaiah 13:10, a verse that speaks about the second second coming.

"For the stars of heaven and the constellations thereof shall not give their light: the sun shall be darkened in his going forth, and the moon shall not cause her light to shine".

The Hebrew word "Keciyl" was translated to "constellations". When looking up the word "Keciyl" in Strong's concordance, we find that "Keciyl" means "Orion". "Keciyl" being the same root word that was used to refer to Orion in other verses that Orion has been mentioned, in Amos 5:8, Job 9:9 and Job 38:31.

Since the trajectory of the Second coming will affect the Orion, some Christians believe that the second coming will come from the direction of the Orion, the portal being in the Orion nebula.



The factor of the edge of the universe comes about because, if the Orion marks the point where the portal to heaven will be, could that be the edge of our universe? What we imagine when using the term "edge" is a physical end of our universe, but what we find at the Orion is not an "edge" as we imagine, but an entry or exit point to and from our universe - a portal.
They tried to bury us, they didn't know we were seeds.
D32
#60 Posted : Monday, August 25, 2014 4:42:42 PM
Rank: Member

Joined: 2/16/2012
Posts: 808
Wakanyugi wrote:
tycho wrote:
@D32, I don't think the two Worldviews are any different. At least when put in action one can't tell the difference.



"The Universe had a beginning, and therefore will have an end"

"The Universe had no beginning and therefore will never end."

Actually you are right Tycho. both world views are learning on the idea of time (and indirectly) space, being real. The pervasive language problem again.

I think the correct point is not a beginning or not.

The Universe is.

With a qualifier that the word 'is' does not imply time.


Once set in motion, the difference is how life is lived. If the universe has a creator, then we are bound by obligations to the moral law, whereas if the universe has no creator, then there would not be any divine law which we are obliged to obey.

The moral obligations govern the interactions between:

- Humans and their creator
- Humans and humans
- Humans and the environment or world around them, both of things animate and inanimate.

Below are sample laws relating to the just mentioned categories.

The first 4 commandments in the ten commandments deal the relationship between humans and their creator, while the second 6 deal with the relationship between humans and humans.

Laws regarding the relationship between humans and the environment as well as laws between humans with plant and animal life:

We have been placed on Earth as custodians, responsible for the well being of everything.

Genesis 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

Animals:

Proverbs 12:10 A righteous man regardeth the life of his beast... (Animal cruelty)

Environment:

That those who destroy the Earth will be destroyed.

Rev 11:18 ... and shouldest destroy them which destroy the earth. (Just in case you did not know, God is environmentally conscious, so being part of an environmental cause or conservation, e.g. what Wangari Maathai did, is honored by the creator.)

Plants / Agriculture:

In the creation account, after all had been created, just before the creation of the first human, we find one of the reasons why humans were created.

Genesis
2:5 ... there was not a man to till the ground.
2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

So, moral obligations are what distinguishes a universe that has been created by a creator, from a universe that does not have a creator.
They tried to bury us, they didn't know we were seeds.
7 Pages«<4567>
Forum Jump  
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Copyright © 2026 Wazua.co.ke. All Rights Reserved.