Dear Matthew,
Sorry, it was too deep in the link I sent. The paper I referenced is here [0907.2469] Astrometric Solar-System Anomalies showing the four anomalies in our solar system, with one being an unexplained increase of distance to the sun by 15cm/yr. I bring this together with the theory of DM and DE because, since there is so much DE theorized in the universe, yet no one has found any local indication that it exists. It is logical that if there was so much in the universe that we should notice it within the solar system. Thus, for me, DE is spiritual energy that a number of researchers have studied. I have noted Both Dr Masaru Emoto and Bernd Kroeplin in the past.
Happy Easter, Shawn
But wait, if youâre serious, then my objection should be taken very seriously. You have proposed astrology and âspiritual energyâ as a âtheoryâ to fill gaps in knowledge. And yet my forebears wrote and spoke of gods with abilities far beyond ours, abilities that can easily fill the AU-drift knowledge gap. (Iâm assuming this gap is real. Maybe itâs not.) These gods have names and stories and even lineages. They arenât just âenergyâ or vague concepts made up on the spot. Some are immortal, all are powerful, and some are worshipped to this day. Why did you not consider them?
I do not need or want âspiritual energyâ to satisfy my ignorance. But if I did, I would be so much more inspired by Sulis, given her history among my ancestors and the fact that she is worshipped at Bath. I would be offended by any theorist (like you) turning her work into a generic âforceâ acting between objects in the solar system.
This was not a discussion of the gods, but of the construct of Godâs universe. You commented on a secondary issue from my Two World Hypothesis. The existence of the gods that you spoke of is evidence of the ethereal world mentioned in my hypothesis, but adds nothing to support the theory that our material is an open system, not a closed system as currently assumed. Although I agree with you in principle, bringing a discussion of the gods into my theory leads to laughter from serious scientists, and gives them reason not to question a basic assumption underpinning two big plug variables called DE and DM.
Oh heavens, my ancestral gods care not whether the universe is âopenâ or âclosed,â for they will open what is closed and close what is opened. They are gods, not atmospheric phenomena.
It probably leads to laughter from the silly ones too.
If you are proposing âspiritual energyâ to fill explanatory gaps in the universe, then you cannot expect scientists, serious or otherwise, to give heed. Neither astrology nor my much more interesting ancestral gods are legitimate explanations for anything. They are both creations of human minds. Naturally I think my ancestors were way more creative and thoughtful than any âtheoristâ talking of âspiritual energy,â but Iâm not nearly silly enough to propose their gods as answers to a scientific question.
I have not proposed this, you have. I have suggested an explanation for their plug variable called dark energy, and this has nothing to with gods. It has to do with the energy needed to create the Big Bang. Where did it come from and why is it not possible that a continuous flow of this energy remained after the initial Big Bang?
Thanks Shawn. Iâm not sure why you postulate anything in light of the paper you referenced though as the authors themselves give two possibilities:
It is prudent to suspect that all four anomalies have mundane explanations, or that one or more anomalies are a result of systematic error. Yet they might eventually be explained by new physics. For example, a slightly modified theory of gravitation is not ruled out, perhaps analogous to Einsteinâs 1916 explanation for the excess precession of Mercuryâs perihelion.
It seems as if you have skipped the âmundaneâ or âsystematic errorâ and jumped right into evidence for spiritual energy.
Thereâs a reason for that (at least Dark Energy locally). For Dark Matter locally here are some more recent measurements:
As for Dark Energy, we can constrain the dark energy density locally by measuring the orbit of the planets and we find that the amount is less than 10^-32 GeV^4 (see equation 600 in this review paper for derivation). However, we can measure the amount of dark energy density much more precisely on larger scales.
Do you know how large the density of dark energy is throughout the entire universe? Itâs really really small. Weâre talking the energy equivalent of a few protons per cubic meter. Itâs inconceivable to measure locally but over larger distances that effect becomes noticeable. It is illogical to expect it to be measurable in our solar system (though we can put constraints as I just mentioned, albeit they are much worse than large scale cosmological measurements). In other words, Dark Energy does not explain the anomalies you proposed and we know that with confidence.
Well then that means that the spiritual energy has absolutely no impact or effect on much of anything, especially locally but can have tiny impacts over large cosmological scales. It has an energy density of a few protons per meter cubed and doesnât interact with regular matter and thus is a rather useless spiritual energy.
Thanks, same to you!
Dear Matthew,
Thank you for your comments. The one thing you failed to comment on is my original hypothesis - That the universe is not a closed system. I have only provided a few areas that demonstrates the material universe is not a closed system, but I obviously have not proven it to your satisfaction. But that was not the point of the thread.
Scientists need to challenge their assumptions, and assuming that the system is closed creates two major problems: 1) where did the energy come from to create the big bang from within the system? and 2) where is the dark energy?
If the solar system is not a closed system, and the galaxy, Milky Way, in which the solar system is physically a part of, is not closed, there is no point to have a closed universe. Unless there is a spiritual boundary and upon contacting such a boundary, the physical starts to contract? How would we know if God put enough energy in at the start or is constantly adding energy?
I think we need to reconsider the limit that Satan, who is representative of a contrast with God, is viewed. The ANE accounts seem to limit Satan to this solar system. Somehow the early church took the direction that Satan was given charge of the whole universe. I think that was wrong. Most modern scholars seem to agree that even Genesis has only to do with this solar system, even if they do not openly admit it. You can see this in the readings of Genesis 1:1 in modern versions of the Bible. I think if we are going to limit God in the Bible as only dealing with this solar system, then limiting Satan to only the local planetary system should follow.
If we consider God as responsible for the entire universe, that does not mean giving Satan back access to all of the universe. Correcting one view does not mean the other view is effected. While Satan does not seem to be completely bound yet, we should have always limited his inluence to this solar system only. Trying to compare physical phenomenon as a complete mirror of a spiritual phenomenon will not always work out how we think it should.
It is highly anachronistic to attribute to any ANE accounts (Genesis accounts included) any considerations of multiple solar systems. Their word: âworldâ should probably be taken to be roughly analogous to what we now mean when we say âuniverseâ. I.e: âall of creationâ. For them the stars are just part and parcel of âthe worldâ belonging to this âheavens and earthâ. They did consider the stars; remember that little âafter-thoughtâ sentence in Genesis 1? They just didnât consider them as vast solar systems in their own right. They were part of the earth system - going around the earth with the sun, moon, planets, and everything else.
So whatever else it may be, the Bible is a very earth-centric account of things. To use that to try to draw conclusions (even spiritual ones) about things beyond our planet, when it is a message and an incarnation to peoples very much created on this planet is, I suggest, not wise. The most broadly sweeping conclusions: that even if we can leave our planet and get out among other planets or stars, we would not, by doing so, escape Godâs domain. The universality of God as Creator of all remains even as our awareness of creationâs vast dimensions continues to explode. But as to angelic/demonic intrigue and all such details, that goes well beyond what scriptures reveal to us - the imaginations of others around here notwithstanding.
I already answered this. Itâs everywhere and has a very low energy density (a few protons per cubic meter).
I donât think any cosmologists really thinks that it is a closed system. Especially those that work on inflation or dabble in string theory.
But they donât assume this.
This might be helpful that the conservation of energy is a useful relationship but it is only a consequence of some deeper principles and is not absolute:
https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2010/02/22/energy-is-not-conserved/
There is no need for some kind of mystical energy source. If such an energy source existed, it would be so incredibly small (like dark energy) and not interact with us in any way shape or form.
I agree it is not wise. I think the Bible clearly states that Satan is confined to this earth only. Why try to speculate about his influence throughout the rest of the cosmos both now and in the past? Even trying to state that it goes way beyond our knowledge is not wise. Why make the issue out to be more than it is? If Satan is portrayed as a roaring lion, seeking prey, why make it out to be something beyond our control?
Are the modern versions wrong in the attempt to keep âearth centricityâ a thing? The Spirit of truth was supposed to guide us away from the misunderstandings of past humans.
Well - insofar as modern versions are expected to be faithful renditions of the earlier accounts, they would become wrong if they didnât reflect the âearth-centricityâ of the original culture and text.
I donât think the Bible claims this either. And to think so would lead to really bizarre spiritual claims such as ⌠astronauts on the ISS (or the moon or mars or anywhere else) are now beyond the reach of Satan and therefore have reached some spiritual âsafe zoneâ. I think we can safely say that wherever we human beings go, we carry our spiritual baggage with us, and are still underneath whatever spiritual dangers / helps that are available to us as we stand on Terra firma.
A faithful rendition is one thing. Changing a text to make it âfitâ an ideology we think they had is a totally different thing. It may work in most ancient text. When it comes to Godâs Word, we want Godâs intent, not necessarily what other humans think was Godâs intent. I doubt it is of God to imply God created a flat world with a solid dome, in the center of the universe. How it came to us over thousands of years, did come to a wrong conclusion, but not actually Godâs intent.
I think that Jesus pointed out that offences come through humanity. So where ever humans go they will take sin and death with them. We already have an issue with going to other systems. Jesus never promised to gather us from all over the galaxy. His return is to the earth. As for Satan, should we take it on faith that he is out to defeat us, like we take God by faith? Seems like a waste of good faith if we think it bizarre to also want to not be in his vicinity. If we do not seek Satan out now, why would we want to take Satan with us, just because he always needs to be our adversary? Jesus said there were humans who were already given over to Satan. That seems sufficient to me to spread the unwanted presence of the mind of Satan, without the person of Satan.
My whole point was to minimize Satanâs influence. Not to figure out how plausible or even feasible it is to allow him free reign of the universe. Because we would have to also figure out to where Satan âlandedâ when alegedly he and a third of x was debarred from the throne of God. Jesus had a meeting with Satan before his earthly ministry not just because Jesus was human, but because Satan seemed to have a say in the spiritual affairs of the earth. Jesus did not need Satanâs permission, but proved to Satan that he had no power over Jesus. But to assume that Satan has some say in how the universe operates, seems to go beyond what Satan was created for, much less so after being demoted.
I agree that we shouldnât âmake too muchâ of Satan, but nor should we make too little. It isnât a question of âwhat we allowâ (as if we were in charge of setting limits on such domains). In some ways we are given power over Satan through and in Christ. But even Jesus was obliged to know what Satan had on offer before he turned him away - an action that would still need repetition later on in Christâs ministry as well. Iâm not going to split hairs over what differences there may or may not be between a âpresenceâ or a âpersonâ of Satan. Rest assured, though, we donât escape such presence by slight alterations of our own cosmic street address.
Only in our warp-driven science fiction imaginations. We havenât even solved the problem of getting to Mars yet (radiation and survival challenges) â shoot â we havenât even solved the mystery of taking care of our own planet we are already on and for which we are already adapted and created! in any way that looks sustainable in the long term. So right now itâs laughable that we fancy ourselves in a position to challenge interstellar gulfs with anything other than our telescopes or maybe a micro-probe or two. In short, Iâll wrestle with the theological challenges of âother systemsâ if we ever reach that bridge, which I donât foresee happening in our lifetime, if at all. But even if so, I donât think it to be some insurmountable theological conundrum any more than the discovery of new continents and peoples was for some Europeans several centuries ago.
I agree that giving us a cosmic astronomy lesson wasnât Godâs point. But do you deny that his point was delivered to us within just such a context of those understandings? Is it Godâs purpose in our lives to help us get our mechanical understandings right or our hearts right?
Then thank God for gravity! Itâs doing a pretty good job of making sure this is exactly where we will be for the foreseeable future. But ponder this from Psalm 139:
Where can I go from your spirit?
Or where can I flee from your presence?
If I ascend to heaven, you are there;
if I make my bed in Sheol, you are there.
If I take the wings of the morning
and settle at the farthest limits of the sea,
even there your hand shall lead me,
and your right hand shall hold me fast.
1 Like
This topic was automatically closed 6 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.