Let there be light....

Great Debates
121

This is true, we don’t know. We have theories based on physical laws of gravity and apply them to the extreme cases of BH’s, but even these have multiple answers (as pointed out above a gravastar also obeys the laws but acts quite differently.) and might not apply at all.

Yes this is what happens when any mass is put on the mattress, it distorts spacetime, making actually more ‘space’ The earth does this, and light is ‘bent’ ever so slightly. Actually the light travels straight but the space is bent, so it appears like the light is bent.

We know this works outside the EH of a BH because we can and have used the bending of light to observe distant objects, called gravitational lensing. But this only applies outside the EH, for all I know there may be whip cream inside the EH.

The mattress example was used because it is easy to understand, in reality we are already dealing with a 3d object somehow causing more space around it, perhaps pushing into a 4th dimension.

122

I have put no personal spin on it. I took your actual words, (despite the fact that you had already tailored hi words to fit your agenda), and I pointed out that an employer asking that people not waste time arguing religion was reasonable–as even you admitted–then I asked a question about what you had posted since it included contradictory statements. If you don’t want to answer, I understand and will not pursue it.

123

And peace be with you also, Autolycus. You saved me from posting a longer, angrier post. Got another beer?

To the OP: I found your personal experience fascinating. I’m glad that you took the time to write it.

124

OK, Tom, I will give you the benefit of the doubt and explain it to you.

No where in my post did I mention: religious proselytizing, he was not able to find people to discuss his experience with “at will”, He met with a small group, he was not discouraged from taking up the matter during working hours because he never said anything during working hours. He was afraid to talk about it because of the attitude of suppression of religion that prevailed. Now, having said that, No, I don’t want to answer a post that has twisted my words into something I didn’t say.

125

When I am at work, it is during working hours. The number of times I have hung around at work for quality personal time can be numbered on one finger with change. So either you or he is making a big deal about a non-event. If he was not talking about it at work, then “especially at work” is irrelevant. As for proselytizing, the normal person who is approached by co-worker who suddenly, out of the blue, wishes to discuss spiritual themes is going to perceive such a witness as proselytizing. If he did not talk about it at work, how did he know to fear to talk about it at work?

Now, you have asserted (either echoing or interpreting him), that it was the “attitude of suppression of religion,” that caused him fear. However, the context of that attitude is based on a discussion of NDE. I see no reason to assume that an attitude of “suppression of religion” caused his anxiety when it could just as easily have been people put off by talk of NDEs.

You make the claim that he could not find people with whom to discuss his feeling “at will,” but then note that he has found a group of people with whom to discuss it. This is the contradiction, (with a soupçon of proselytizing thrown in). Unless he was going about clandestinely seeking people with whom to talk in underground enclaves, he had to have found such a group in some open manner, whether it was sriking up conversations with other patients at his clinic or reading about people with similar views in the paper or in an ad seeking others with similar experiences. The fact that he found a group, at all, means that they are not being suppressed. That is pretty much “at will.” (Unless, of course, his problem was that he could not grab people at bus stops or cocktail parties and make them listen to him–and I assure you that approaching people to start talking about religion gives off a definite aura of proselytizing, even if the person talking is not attempting to preach a specific message.)

I am not claiming that he met no resistance to talking about it; I simply note that the “suppression of religion” and even the “fear” are quite possibly either personal impressions of his own that are not really supported by facts or are interpretations of the natural reactions of people being button-holed to listen to stuff in which they are not interested–and since this is set in the context of NDEs, it could be just as easily a reluctance to talk about weird things as a “suppression of religion.”
(Note that Maastricht did not talk about a suppression of religion, she talked about the perceived sanity of people who would get up on a soapbox in a park or street corner to preach religion. People who get up on soapboxes preach in the U.S. are generally regarded as loony, as well. I know several Dutch Christians who have never expressed a feeling of suppression regarding their home.)

126

Whatever is your opinion, it must be right, I am finished with this post.

127

“Let there be light: and there was light.”-GOD

From ancient times, thoughts concerning the origin of the world have been associated with a deity who made the light and subsequently the heavens, the earth, and man. The God who separated light from darkness has been considered a life giving force, the first cause, and because of this act of love, the foundation and the very existence of man.

The new theories of the origin of the world, as seen by modern cosmogony seem perplexing to the human mind. Through the centuries, as mankind gradually accumulated knowledge about the various observed phenomena taking place in the world system, a scientific method began to take shape, concluding that the way to the discovery of a first cause would be through historical data — hence, the theory of the big bang and a new era.

There have been many from the Church and the physical disciplines that have characterized the scientific era by searching out an understanding of the origin of the world’s emergence totally from natural causes, e.g., a reasonably complete and consistent theory of planetary formation. This comes through knowledge of the workings of our solar system and the progress of observational astronomy. However, though the universal picture has been broadened, difficulties remain — explaining the origin and evolution of the great galactic families of stars is one. Understanding the nature, size, and shape of one galaxy and then comparing it to another may suggest to us which one is older, but alas, everything is relative. How old is the oldest?

There is no scientific absolute that can explain a cause. The big bang is a belief based on hypothetical circumstances. It is thought to have resulted from a continuous evolutionary process that started in a highly compressed homogeneous material a few billion years ago. I ask myself, where were you when that happened? Then I say to myself, it must be hypothetical.

Some scientists believe the same circumstances require a hypothesis that says the existing universe has been somewhat the same throughout eternity. The "steady-state” universe theory claims the continuous creation of matter in intergalactic space.

Cosmogony is generally left in the hands of the theologians. It concerns the creation, origination, or manner of coming into being of the world or universe. More specifically, a biblical cosmogony that is generally accepted in the monotheistic Protestant tradition is: the doctrine of the origin of the universal cosmic order by the creative power of God. Ex nihilo is a cosmogony that means the universe was created out of nothing, or, — not from previously existing material. In order though, to introduce my thoughts on biblical cosmogony, I find it necessary to insert a short piece I wrote some time ago.

Creation out of nothing — ex nihilo — infers there is no God. Can there be something from nothing? It is “nothing” that does not exist, for God is all in all. All in all connotes existence — God exists!

If we separate the physical from the spiritual, without regard to a continuum, then that which is physical would come from nothing — ex nihilo — and the bodily ascension of Jesus Christ would be without reason. If however, we consider there is one spiritual entity, the “all in all,” and we come from and reside within that spirit which exists in its eternal state, the Light, then the reason is that we have come from something. God created us means we come from something. God is spirit. God is something. “Nothing” then, would not exist. And, it would be reasonable for the physical body of Jesus to make the change and ascend into Glory.

Let’s reason together. If we put “nothing” in a box over here, and put “something” in a box over there, a duality exists. If God is “all, and in all” there is no duality — there is God and that which is created — the singularity of one within the other.

Because we choose a linear historical frame of reference for our academic pursuits, in the deep recesses of our mental and spiritual understandings we can only see darkness. The great authoritative kabbalist Nahmanides in his commentary to the Torah of creatio ex nihilo suggested that in its literal sense it is the free creation of the primeval matter from which everything was made. However, he implied by his kabbalistic allusion in his commentary to Genesis 1, that the true mystical meaning of the text is the emergence of all things from the absolute nothingness of God. Essentially, the kabbalists thought that this nothingness is the barrier confronting the human intellectual faculty when it reaches the limits of its capacity. There is a realm they think, that no created being can intellectually comprehend, which can only be described as “nothingness.” Most Christian denominations agree to creatio ex nihilo, believing that the only source of the doctrine of creation out of nothing is found in the Bible. However, this theological cosmogony creatio ex nihilo is in line with most scientific thought. The prevailing cosmological and astronomical proofs of this line of reason, i.e. their singularity theorems, suggest that at some definite time in the past the universe was compressed to a state of zero size and infinite density, called a singularity. As the doctrine creatio ex nihilo leads us to a state of nothingness, so does the written mathematical laws of physics break down into a place of nothingness at a singularity — darkness is to much for the human mind or mathematics to comprehend. It seems that history can only lead us to … .

According to the Bible, I find it difficult to understand the universe was created ex nihilo (out of nothing) or from chaos (pre — existing matter). Moreover, I do not believe in a solid — state theory (that the universe has always been in existence).

What I know according to the Bible is: Jesus is the beginning.

Re 1:8 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.

God formed the light and created the darkness.

Isa 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

The created darkness was there prior to God forming the light.

Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

Jesus is the light of the world (the Greek word for world is kosmos).

Joh 8:12 Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life.

Jesus is the only begotten of the Father

Joh 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

Jesus is seen by man as a visable light

Acts 26:13 At midday, O king, I saw in the way a light from heaven, above the brightness of the sun, shining round about me and them which journeyed with me.

14 And when we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.

15 And I said, Who art thou, Lord? And he said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest.

All of creation was and is within Jesus

Eph 4:9 (Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth?

Eph 4:10 He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things.)

In the end, God and the lamb are the temple and that temple is light

Rev 21:22 And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it.

23 And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof.

24 And the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of it: and the kings of the earth do bring their glory and honour into it.

25 And the gates of it shall not be shut at all by day: for there shall be no night there.

26 And they shall bring the glory and honour of the nations into it.

27 And there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie: but they which are written in the Lamb’s book of life.

All of the previous verses tell me Gen 1:1, “In the beginning …”, means everything was created within the begotton light of the world. The same verses tell me all who believe are now and will be within Christ Jesus the light of the world forever. For me to understand this, means that in Him there is no darkness. There is no recourse but to tell everyone on the planet.

According to the Bible, I do not believe the universe was created ex nihilo (out of nothing — God is substantive) or from chaos (pre — existing matter). Moreover, I do not believe in a solid-state theory (that the universe has always been in existance).

I believe that out of and within God and Christ was the heavens and the earth created.

I cannot understand why we argue from extra — Biblical asumption that comes to us via the doctrine of man. There is no proof in our arguments. Can we stop and argue Biblical proofs? What does the Bible say?

Please regard first word in verse 22 below? — the word is “In” (Greek “en” = inside, within). The whole of the creation of God is “in” Christ who is the first and the last the only begotten of God. We must believe for the following to be true.

Eph 2:18 For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father.

19 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;

20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;

21 In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord:

22 In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.

Bible scholars have chosen an historical critical paradigm to decipher Biblical texts. In my opinion this paradigm was given its lofty place in Biblical exegesis because of our need to etymologize and Bishop Usshers competitive efforts with astronomical calculations of his time so he could prove the day and the hour of creation. At that time, astromomy was leaving astrology behind because of our methods of tracking the stars and figuring out from where they came. It is the historical paradigm that will seemingly refute my understanding in every way shape and form. I believe it is the history of Biblical words that enables us to decipher the true contextual meaning of the Bible. I have read many extra-biblical histories though, and I find most are based in part on assumption. Show me an extra-biblical history and I will show you one by another author that is different.

The coming Kingdom is not an assumption — it is based on faith. When I see the acts of faith in and by the Christian community, I see the evidence of things not seen. I see the kingdom coming. Our faith comes not from looking back as did Lot’s wife, but from looking toward what is hoped for by the believing community.

I believe eternity is the true Biblical paradigm. I believe that eternal concepts are omni in nature as opposed to a lineal historical frame. I believe God, the Son and the Holy Spirit are omni-present in relation to the creation. I believe there is no duality. I believe all things created are within God and the Son. When I look at time, I see the earth rotating every 24 hours and I see the earth going round the sun every 364 1/4 days and then I say to myself (I got this from Einstein) if I were to travel out into space until I couldn’t see the earth — what time would it be? Then I come back to my senses and realize that God made the lights in the firmament for seasons and days and years. All in all, I cannot see all of this in a linear time frame.

The word “be reshyith” is translated as: In the Beginning. The Septuagint renders the first words “en arche” as does the quote you gave in John 1:1. Rav Berg, says the Creator chose the letter B (Bet, Bayt) since it is the first letter of the word blessing. Bayt is the second letter of the Hebrew alphabet and is the archtype of all ‘containers’, the physical means by which Aleph can cause animation of life. Aleph is all that is and all that is not, that which cannot be conceived. Aleph must have a ‘receptacle’ in order for the abstract to come into existence.

I didn’t know about Rav Berg until recently. I have always believed the first words in Genesis and John meant “In” within the beginning Christ Jesus because he is all and in all save for the father.

The historical paradigm renders the first words (in reality) “at” the beginning. When I read 1 John 4:2 history requires the word “in” to be “has” come in the flesh. The truth is that Jesus is in the flesh of the believer. Jesus is the resurrection and we are the body of Christ. So, “Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God”. In context John is not speaking from an historical frame.

Looking into history will render assumption — looking at eternity will render God.

I would like to give to you, in part, how I understand that the heavens declare the glory of God.

When we look into the darkness of the night sky we see many stars. Each star that we see shines on us. Because we can see a star is proof that the star shines on us. Each star shines on every other star unless there is another star or obstruction in the way. Moreover, every star shinning on every other star creates the structure of the heavens.

It is said that when we create a telescope large enough, and we look out into the heavens, we will see only luminescent light — in every spot we look with this great telescope there will be a shinning star. This is called the optical horizon.

Because we are on the earth and are outside of the sun, we are obstructed from seeing the stars on the other side of the sun that would shine on us, however, through our sun we can partake of the life of the other stars that are shining on it. Still, being on the earth, during the day, we are obstructed from the night sky and the stars that are there and in the night we are obstructed from the sun and those stars on the other side of the sun. Were we inside of the sun, and we looked out with our great telescope, all we would be able to see would be light — there would be no darkness.

Be as it may, we the body of Christ, like the stars in the heavens, are luminaries through the darkness of the ways of world. Each of those who are not a believer is an obstruction in our heavenly construct on the earth. The only way to a perfect completion of our heavenly construct, the temple of God here in earth, is to give to those who are without life. And, that life is our Lord the “sun of righteousness” — Jesus the Son of God. Through Jesus, we who believe can partake of the life and light of the Father who is the creator of the heavens and the earth — in him there is no obstruction.

Thank you Jesus.

128

The long post prior to this is part of what I believe. My studies led me to a place where most of Christianity does not concur. I looked for myself. I studied to show myself approved. Does that make me a "non-"Christian? No!

I do not believe the doctrines of men. Most of all, I know that I do not have the complete story. I know that in the Revelation there are seven churches. I know that only two were accepted by God. I know that, even though some had faults, they were still called the Church in…

I took many small group classes in college. In all of the classes the prof. would ask a question that all could not agree. By the end of the semester, all agreed to the answer. We were not allowed to disprove each other. If we disagreed, one with another, we were to prove the point of the one with whom we disagreed. Out of that practice, we all were able, in time, to come to agreement. This process never failed. I hope someday the Christian and secular communities will come to a new understanding of apologetic.

Blessings

129

Perhaps “it is said” by devout believers. It is certainly not “said” by astronomers.

130

Have you read all of the astronomers?

Blessings

131

Which astronomers feel there isn’t an answer to Olbers’ paradox?

132

Have you read any recent qualified astronomers (i.e. recent as in since the red shift has been demonstrated, qualified as in that have postgraduate training and are employed as astronomers) that believe your idea about the “optical horizon”? While we’re at it, have you looked up the conventional definition of what the “optical horizon” is?

133

When you read all of the astronomers, then I will answer your questions. You see, assumption is the difficulty in all of our academics. You assumed and that is why you could not answer my question directly—your ego got in the way—you do not want to be wrong. There is an assumption that the universe is expanding. I personally cannot prove the validity of universal expansion to be true or false—when you get right down to it, universal expansion is assumed. I can assume that what we assume to be recession is nothing but a light source traveling toward the apex of a curve that encircles the cosmological system. The proofs you and I would have pro or con would be assumed.

Have you read all of the astronomers? If you have, I give you much credit—I have not. I did read them for fifteen solid years though.

Blessings

134

That’s not how it works. You made the claim, therefore it is your responsibility to back it up.
LilShieste

135

No. There is not.

The expansion of the universe began as an idea, based on observations. The idea was then worked out mathematically, based on limited observations, and predictions were made based on the results of calculations, that if the universe were expanding, then we would observe other phenomena. When astronomers looked, they found the predicted phenomena. This led to more predicitions and more observed phenomena until the current description of the universe was established. The expanding universe is not an assumption.

136

OK - You read various astronomers for “fifteen solid years”. Then I have a very simple question that you should be able to answer off the top of your head - which of those astronomers believe as you do about the “optical horizon”? Even simpler question - can you point me to a dictionary or encyclopedia that shares your idea of what the “optical horizon” is?

137

That is how it works and I will not debate the issue. Without reading all of the astronomers, it was assumed that I am incorrect—that is in fact, how most theories are promulgated. Our theorists assume a principle is correct, and then, over and over we grow into another understanding. Our difficulty is when we assume a theory is the end all. I do not argue against the process of learning, I argue that assumption is not and cannot be the foundation of truth. The universe exists, is it an assumption that the universe was created? Prove your point or make a choice…

“Redshift is a techno-economic theory suggesting hypersegmentation of Information Technology (IT) markets based on whether individual computing needs are over or under-served by Moore’s Law, which predicts the doubling of computing transistors (and therefore roughly computing power) every two years. The theory, proposed and named by Sun Microsystems CTO Greg Papadopoulos, categorizes a series of high growth markets (Redshifting) while predicting slower GDP-driven growth in traditional computing markets (Blueshifting). Papadopoulos predicts the result will be a fundamental redesign of components comprising computing systems.”

In physics and astronomy, redshift occurs when the electromagnetic radiation, usually visible light, that is emitted from or reflected off of an object is shifted towards the red end of the electromagnetic spectrum. More generally, redshift is defined as an increase in the wavelength of electromagnetic radiation received by a detector compared with the wavelength emitted by the source. This increase in wavelength corresponds to a decrease in the frequency of the electromagnetic radiation. Conversely, a decrease in wavelength is called blue shift.
Any increase in wavelength is called “redshift”, even if it occurs in electromagnetic radiation of non-optical wavelengths, such as gamma rays, x-rays and ultraviolet. This nomenclature might be confusing since, at wavelengths longer than red (e.g., infrared, microwaves, and radio waves), redshifts shift the radiation away from the red wavelengths.

~Red Shift Theory Falls Short~

  • The Red Light Shift Theory, by Kent R. Rieske

The “Red Light Shift Theory” is in big trouble. Perhaps this should be listed as Big Bang Flaw No. 1 because it gave birth to the Big Bang Theory. The red light shift theory is the very foundation for the Big Bang Theory. The theory was first formulated by Edwin Hubble and Milton Humason in 1929 and became known as the Hubble Redshift Theory. The concept of a universe expanding from a single source at a real point of time in the past was developed because Dr. Hubble discovered the red light shift. Dr. Hubble found that very distant galaxy clusters were emitting light with a red shift. The thought was that a distant body was moving away from us because the light emitted had a shift to a longer wave length caused by the velocity. This is called the Doppler effect in sound waves. White light emitted from an object that is moving away at a high speed appears in the red spectrum. The light appears in the violet or blue spectrum when the object is moving toward the viewer. The concept is simple, perhaps too simple. The Redshift Theory has our little planet at the center of the universe because nearly all galaxies are moving away from us. This is ridiculous. It seems the myth that the Earth is the center of the universe will never die.

Me again:
I cannot prove anything and neither can any person on this board. We make choices. My choice is that there is a loving and giving entity that created the cosmological system for us to live in. I believe the physics communities are going to, eventually, get to an understanding of the first cause to be a real and giving life form. It could just as well have been that it was, instead of gravitational pull, a giving force to create density/mass and that that giving force could be the cause of the perceived cosmological expansion from mass point to and expansive material system.

Regardless, our physical bodies came out of the dirt and end up in the dirt—I think.

blessings

138

I like the way you think, lightwait, but I don’t place great importance on the beginning of the universe or whether it is expanding or not. Those issues will never be solved to the satisfaction of all. It is as you say, they can only be assumed. I do place great importance on God is All That Is, or the Oneness of all things and the teachings of Jesus. If we are ever to learn to live comfortable together we need to understand these important truths.

139

And what are this person’s qualifications? I find it a little hard to believe that he is an astronomer, because a rather simple demonstration shows that all (or most) galaxies moving away from us does NOT imply that we are at the centre of the universe. Blow up a baloon a little bit. Put a whole bunch of dots on it. Blow it up some more. All the dots move away from each other, and from the point of view of any given dot, all the dots are moving away from it even though it is not the centre of the expansion. That’s in two dimensions. For three dimensions, picture making a batch of raisin bread - as the bread rises, all the raisins move away from each other and from the point of view of any given raisin, all the other raisins are moving away from it even though, again, it is not the centre of the expansion.

140

Why do you expect people to listen to your ideas, when you refuse to listen to theirs?