That’s not actually a real fact. Where do you get your facts from?
2 Likes
I’m confusing no such thing Roy. The gap between the events described and the descriptions is more than enough for a priestly class to make their stories fit Second Temple Messianic fantasy, convincing themselves it had to have happened that way as look, they believe it. It’s very easy to be that brutal about it all.
And I want to believe it too.
1 Like
How did ‘it’ get too hot? What’s ‘it’? These equations?. Physics is not the problem. The misreading of it through the filter of religiosity is.
That’s like saying gravity doesn’t exist because we haven’t detected the quantum particle for the force. There is tons of evidence for dark matter without needing to have detected the actual particle.
I’m trying to understand why you think Jewish priests would add to a document (they regarded as holy and untouchable) in order to make it look as though Jesus fulfilled a prophecy. I can’t think of any reason.
Unless I’m mistaken, he has to because he doesn’t think prophecy is possible.
The scroll of Is. 53 shows no sign of anything being changed so there’s no reason to doubt it was faithfully copied by the Essenes from a copy older than the one found by the Dead Sea. Besides, Is. 53 is the same in other copies that are not dependent on the Dead Sea copy.
Evidence is not proof. Anyway, the only evidence for it is that it balances equations without having to find out why they didn’t work (too much time).
Yes, it’s a fact. (And this is why “No it’s not,” is not a valid argument without facts to back it up)
Have you ever looked it up in a science site?
In the early 1990s, one thing was fairly certain about the expansion of the universe. It might have enough energy density to stop its expansion and recollapse, it might have so little energy density that it would never stop expanding, but gravity was certain to slow the expansion as time went on. Granted, the slowing had not been observed, but, theoretically, the universe had to slow. The universe is full of matter and the attractive force of gravity pulls all matter together. Then came 1998 and the Hubble Space Telescope (HST) observations of very distant supernovae that showed that, a long time ago, the universe was actually expanding more slowly than it is today. So the expansion of the universe has not been slowing due to gravity, as everyone thought, it has been accelerating. No one expected this, no one knew how to explain it. But something was causing it.
Eventually theorists came up with three sorts of explanations. Maybe it was a result of a long-discarded version of Einstein’s theory of gravity, one that contained what was called a “cosmological constant.” Maybe there was some strange kind of energy-fluid that filled space. Maybe there is something wrong with Einstein’s theory of gravity and a new theory could include some kind of field that creates this cosmic acceleration. Theorists still don’t know what the correct explanation is, but they have given the solution a name. It is called dark energy.
Note that one thing they can not consider is time.
And about the Oort cloud.
Like the Kuiper Belt and the Scattered Disc, the Oort Cloud is a reservoir of trans-Neptunian objects, though it is over a thousands times more distant from our Sun as these other two. The idea of a cloud of icy infinitesimals was first proposed in 1932 by Estonian astronomer Ernst Öpik, who postulated that long-period comets originated in an orbiting cloud at the outermost edge of the Solar System.
In 1950, the concept was resurrected by Jan Oort, who independently hypothesized its existence to explain the behavior of long-term comets. Although it has not yet been proven through direct observation, the existence of the Oort Cloud is widely accepted in the scientific community.
It is the universe in general, and specifically the nebulae where stars are supposed to be born.
They have to imagine cold areas within them hidden by the lighted portions as in the link I gave.
The universe is getting hot, hot, hot, a new study suggests | ScienceDaily.
Nobody said anybody did. What a bizarre construction.
You claimed there was little, if any, evidence. That simply isn’t the case. If you want to reject the evidence that is your choice.
2 Likes
Cite where the universe is getting hotter.
There is nothing that can be shown to prove dark matter or energy exists. Like evolution, there are scientists who will use any coincidental data as evidence for their theories.
What coincidental data?
Prove to you? Probably not, given the depth of your science denial. Your adherence to dogmatic denial of scientific discoveries in no way makes those discoveries go away.
2 Likes
@Dale and @klax, as Liam pointed out, you already have at least one designated thread for your bickering. Please keep it there and stop producing large-scale derailments on other threads. Thank you.
Sure Laura, but how do you derail a train wreck?
This thread is probably played out, but some appear to be in the middle of more substantial discussions – let’s give it one more day for any additional opinions, and then it will be time to close it down.
1 Like