scientific word for Biblical Filament in Genesis 1: Universe in the Nutshell

[questfortruth]

(Genesis 1:14-16 KJV) This verse says that the Sun, Moon, and Stars=planets of our solar system, are "within" the firmament.

No, this verse relates to human perspective. People see, that stars (even Sun) are so far away, that they appear to be inside the firmament. But firmament is the edge of Observable Universe in my unpublished theories.

 

[The Anointed]

No, this verse relates to human perspective. People see, that stars (even Sun) are so far away, that they appear to be inside the firmament. But firmament is the edge of Observable Universe in my unpublished theories.

Yours is not even a theory my friend, it is no more than an unproven and unsupported hypothesis.

The Cosmic horizon, or the edge of our observable universe, is not the Firmament that surrounds our minor Solar System, within our Milky Way Galaxy, which is but one of the uncountable billions of Galaxies within the eternal and boundless Cosmos. Throw your unpublished hypothesis away young fellow, for no one, but yourself, would ever embarrass themselves by publishing it.

The Oort cloud, or the Opik-Oort cloud, which is named after Jan Oort, is a spherical cloud that surrounds our solar system, a cloud of predominantly icy objects such as comets that are comprised of mainly hydrogen, oxygen=water, ammonia and methane, and extends up to about a light year from the sun and defines the cosmographical boundary of our Solar System and the region of the suns gravitational dominance. Here is the Firmament, the great spherical vault within which is found the sun, moons and planets of our solar system, the dome of ice that surrounds or Solar system

This is one scientific theory as to the creation of our solar system some 9 billion years after the creation of those first massive stars that lit up the darkness of the expanding space.

Whether or not a better theory than that which we have today will develop, time will tell.

This theory would appear to support the biblical statement, that the process of the division of the waters above from the waters below, [See Genesis 1: 6; KJV] or the division of the solar nebula cloud from the greater Galactic nebula cloud, began some five billion years ago, and that the whole process began with the division of the waters (cloud) above, from the waters (Cloud) below from which the entire Solar system was created. This took just a few hundred million years, about 400 million years in fact, and the creation of our entire solar system was completed by about 4.6 billion years ago.

It was from the galactic nebular cloud, which was the residue of the heaver elements that were exploded off with the great super nova, which was the death of one of those gigantic earlier generation Stars, and the creation of the Black Hole that would anchor our Milky-Way galaxy in space, which galaxy would be formed in the second creative period=day, as the active universal forces brought about a division of the Solar nebular cloud [The Waters Below] from the Galactic nebular cloud [The Waters Above].

The accretion of the galactic nebula Cloud, which was being attracted to the central Black Hole around which it had begun to orbit, transferred angular momentum outward as it transferred mass inward, it was this that caused our solar nebula to begin to rotate and condense inward, bringing a division of the solar cloud, from the galactic cloud, or the waters above from the waters below.

Within the greater galactic nebular cloud, which was slowly beginning to revolve around the Black Hole that anchored it in space, a piece of the larger cloud complex started to collapse about five billion years ago. The cloud complex had already been "polluted" with dust grains from previous generations of stars, so it was possible to form the rocky terrestrial planets as gravity pulled the gas and dust together, forming a solar nebula. As the cloud=waters of the solar nebula collapsed, its slight rotation increased. This is because of the conservation of angular momentum.

Just like a dancer who spins faster as she pulls in her arms, the cloud began to spin as it collapsed. Eventually, the cloud grew hotter and denser in the centre, with a disk of gas and dust surrounding it that was hot in the centre but cool at the edges. As the disk got thinner and thinner, particles began to stick together and form clumps. Some clumps got bigger, as particles and small clumps stuck to them, eventually forming planets or moons. Genesis 1: 6—9. As the heavenly cloud was gathered together in one place, dry land, or rather planets began to form. Near the centre of the condensing cloud, where planets like earth formed, only rocky material could stand the great heat. Icy matter settled in the outer regions of the disk along with rocky material, where the giant planets like Jupiter formed.

As the cloud continued to fall in, the centre would get so hot that it would eventually become a star and with a strong stellar wind, would blow away most of the gas and dust from which the planets of the solar system had been formed.

By studying meteorites, which are thought to be left over from this early phase of the solar system, scientists have found that the solar system is about 4.6 billion years old! As the solar nebula collapsed, the gas and dust heated up through collisions among the particles. The solar nebula heated up to around 3000 K so everything was in a gaseous form. The solar nebula's composition was similar to the present-day Sun's composition: about 93% hydrogen, 6% helium, and about 1% silicates and iron, and the density of the gas and dust increased toward the core where the proto-sun was: [PROTO SUN.]. The inner, denser regions collapsed more quickly than the outer regions.

Around Jupiter's distance from the proto-Sun the temperature was cool enough to freeze water (the so-called "snow line" or "frost line"). Further out from the proto-Sun, ammonia and methane were able to condense. There was a significant amount of water closer to the Proto-sun, but could not condense. When the solar nebula stopped collapsing it began cooling, though the core that would later form the Sun remained hot.

This meant that the outer parts of the solar nebula cooled off more than the inner parts closer to the hot proto-Sun. Only metal and rock materials could condense (solidify) at the high temperatures close to the proto-Sun. Therefore, the metal and rock materials could condense in all the places where the planets were forming. Volatile materials (like water, methane and ammonia) could only condense in the outer parts of the solar nebula.

Because the density of the solar nebula material increased inward, there was more water at Jupiter's distance than at the distances of Saturn, Uranus, or Neptune. The greater amount of water ice at Jupiter's distance from the proto-Sun helped it grow larger than the other planets. Although, there was more water closer to the proto-Sun than Jupiter, that water was too warm to condense. Material with the highest freezing temperatures condensed to form the chondrules that were then incorporated in lower freezing temperature material. Chondrules (from Ancient Greek chondros, meaning grain) are round grains found in chondrites. Chondrules form as molten or partially molten droplets in space before being accreted to their parent asteroids.

Any material that later became part of a planet underwent further heating and processing when the planet differentiated so the heavy metals sunk to the planet's core and lighter metals floated up to nearer the surface.

Because of its great compression, the core of the proto-Sun finally reached about 10 million Kelvin and after the planets of the solar system had been created, the hydrogen nuclei started fusing together to produce helium nuclei and a lot of energy. It was then that the proto-Sun "TURNED ON" and became our Sun, which produced the strong winds called T-Tauri winds named after the prototype star in the constellation Taurus.

These winds swept out the rest of the nebula that was not already incorporated into the planets. With most of the cocoon gas blown away, the new star itself becomes visible to the outside for the first time. This whole process took just a few hundred million years and was finished by about 4.6 billion years ago. At the distance of about one light year from the earth, is the great icy Dome, that is the boundary of the firmament of our heavens, in which the sun, moon, and planets of our solar system were created.

According to the Genesis narrative, it is on the second day that the Lord calls for a "firmament" to be in the "midst of the waters" to divide the waters:

"And God said, let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under (or within) the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day." (Genesis 1:6-8 KJV)

 

[questfortruth]

Yours is not even a theory my friend, it is no more than an unproven and unsupported hypothesis.

Because the "master list" journals have rejected without explanation, neither debate, all my manuscripts? If Yes, then you are making another case of the Fallacy of Authority. Does a group of two anonymous referees, who would be a damned sinners, has more authority, than author?

 

[Polymath257]

My point, regarding to “training”, I learn things as I go.

Before 2003, I knew nothing about evolution, because as yo yo can by my engineering and computer degrees, they have nothing to do with biology.

So when I first joined a forum in 2003, I was cluessless, didn’t know what they were talking about in the creationism vs evolution arguments. So I read up evolution from me borrowing my cousin’s first year biology textbook, which have some chapters on evolution.

I have always being interested in astronomy and I wanted to be an astronomer hen I was 9, but no local universities taught astronomy. But to learn about the universe or the cosmology, I have to read about Relativity and Quantum Physics, which were never parts of either courses I did, so I had to learn these on my own, in my free times.

When I was 16, I wanted to become architect, but only few universities offered degrees in architecture, so not many spots were available for thousands of students, but I did get into civil engineering. During my works as civil engineer, I did work with some architects and their design firms, whom I had learned a lot. But most of works on engineering were roadways and storm water pipes. Not very interesting.

What got me interested in computers, and changed in career, was that I used AutoCAD, which is a computer program that assist engineering and architects with design and drafting. That got me interested in computer programming.

You can learn something new, if you are prepared to focus it during free times.

I would second that and double it.

If the only things you have learned have been in a class, then you are very poorly educated.

 

[Polymath257]

There is Baryonic matter ("mass"). It satisfies the Einstein Equations in the presence of Dark Matter. Just describe the DM by an arbitrary energy-momentum tensor. Even such, which violates energy conditions. Nobody will notice violation: DM does not directly interact with Baryonic matter. I have written the book about it, but book is about 50 USD. Nobody has read it.

But to be tem[porally flat means the curvature tensor is exactly zero, which means the stress-energy tensor is exactly zero. That means you have a universe of nothing.

 

[Polymath257]

Because the "master list" journals have rejected without explanation, neither debate, all my manuscripts? If Yes, then you are making another case of the Fallacy of Authority. Does a group of two anonymous referees, who would be a damned sinners, has more authority, than author?

if the editor decides that a paper isn't even worth sending to the referees, then it will tend to be sent to the trashcan and you won't hear anything about it.

This usually means that it is *very* poorly written, is very poorly reasoned, or has misunderstandings that are at the undergraduate or lower graduate level.

From what I have seen of your 'research', it would get trashcanned if I were the editor also.

 

[questfortruth]

if the editor decides that a paper isn't even worth sending to the referees, then it will tend to be sent to the trashcan and you won't hear anything about it.

This usually means that it is *very* poorly written, is very poorly reasoned, or has misunderstandings that are at the undergraduate or lower graduate level.

From what I have seen of your 'research', it would get trashcanned if I were the editor also.

Do you Love me? Jesus does love me. But you don't yet?

 

[blü 2]

It is firmament: Genesis 1:7 KJV. Your brain has not found common pattern in words: firmament, filament? I guess, the Google would find out, that I have misspelled. Are we becoming
bio-robots then? Please reread, video is added.

The original word is not 'firmament'. We don't come to that until the Vulgate uses 'firmamentum' to translate the Septuagint's στερέωμα [stereoma], 'firmness', 'foundation'.

Which was used to translate the original Hebrew raqiya`, meaning, says Strong, a solid expanse.

(In biblical cosmology the earth is flat and fixed immovably. The sky is a solid dome over it and you can walk on it (thus 'firmament'). The stars and other heavenly bodies are affixed to the dome, so they're all quite close together, and if they come loose they'll fall to earth. Details >here<.)

 

[Sky Rivers]

No, this verse relates to human perspective. People see, that stars (even Sun) are so far away, that they appear to be inside the firmament. But firmament is the edge of Observable Universe in my unpublished theories.

I ask you a simple question with a simple answer...

Does God lie?

 

[Sky Rivers]

The original word is not 'firmament'. We don't come to that until the Vulgate uses 'firmamentum' to translate the Septuagint's στερέωμα [stereoma], 'firmness', 'foundation'.

Which was used to translate the original Hebrew raqiya`, meaning, says Strong, a solid expanse.

(In biblical cosmology the earth is flat and fixed immovably. The sky is a solid dome over it and you can walk on it (thus 'firmament'). The stars and other heavenly bodies are affixed to the dome, so they're all quite close together, and if they come loose they'll fall to earth. Details >here<.)

Since this is what scripture declares about the world, why do the majority of Christians condemn it?

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

I ask you a simple question with a simple answer...

Does God lie?

False dichotomies are false.

 

[Sky Rivers]

False dichotomies are false.

It was a simple question.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

It was a simple question.

No, it was a set up for a fallacious argument. [/NMFR]

 

[Sky Rivers]

No, it was a set up for a fallacious argument. [/NMFR]

Why do you assume this?

 

[Polymath257]

Do you Love me? Jesus does love me. But you don't yet?

Emotions are not a reflection of the value of the science.

 

[cladking]

The original word is not 'firmament'. We don't come to that until the Vulgate uses 'firmamentum' to translate the Septuagint's στερέωμα [stereoma], 'firmness', 'foundation'.

Which was used to translate the original Hebrew raqiya`, meaning, says Strong, a solid expanse.

(In biblical cosmology the earth is flat and fixed immovably. The sky is a solid dome over it and you can walk on it (thus 'firmament'). The stars and other heavenly bodies are affixed to the dome, so they're all quite close together, and if they come loose they'll fall to earth. Details >here<.)

Thank you for this .

It wouldn't be appropriate to try to prove it here but I believe there was once another kind of language that used the same vocabulary as our modern confused languages.

I believe that the concept of "firmament" originated in the ancient words for "rainbow". They referred to it some times as "steps of light" and when the language changed the meaning did as well.

The concept of rainbows may be key to understanding the sole source in Ancient Language; the Pyramid Texts. They are called "bows", "steps of light" and were caused by the "light scatterer of the sky" which was mist created by "I3.t-wt.t" and the "violent inundation that tosses".

https://www.sacred-texts.com/egy/pyt/index.htm

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Why do you assume this?

Because NMFR (not my first rodeo)

 

[Sky Rivers]

Because NMFR (not my first rodeo)

*Shrugs*

 

[questfortruth]

Emotions are not a reflection of the value of the science.

But we are not in a peer-review journal. We are socializing. I have asked: Do you Love me like Jesus Does?
See: the journals have never explained to me the rejections. So, they hate me. Dislove is Hatred. The passive aggression.

Stars falling from Firmament: the stars will be rescaled to reduce their size, but the Earth remains the same size, the space scale will be reduced, so the stars will collide with the surface of the Earth.
Therefore, at the time of Omega, the metric will be looking as
ds^2=-h(r) dt^2 + (S(t))^2 (dx^2+dy^2+dz^2), S(t)=radius of the Earth.

Please note, that radiation, which is thought is coming from Big Bang, can indeed come from edge of my model h(r=E)=0 via the Hawking Radiation. Thus, I do not rely on validity of Big Bang disproval to have valid model.

 

[Polymath257]

But we are not in a peer-review journal. We are socializing. I have asked: Do you Love me like Jesus Does?
See: the journals have never explained to me the rejections. So, they hate me. Dislove is Hatred. The passive aggression.

It says nothing at all about what they feel for you. They simply don't think the ideas you have presented have enough merit to warrant sending to the referees.

I don't know you. So I neither love nor hate you.

Stars falling from Firmament: the stars will be rescaled to reduce their size, but the Earth remains the same size, the space scale will be reduced, so the stars will collide with the surface of the Earth.
Therefore, at the time of Omega, the metric will be looking as
ds^2=-h(r) dt^2 + (S(t))^2 (dx^2+dy^2+dz^2), S(t)=radius of the Earth.

Please note, that radiation, which is thought is coming from Big Bang, can indeed come from edge of my model h(r=E)=0 via the Hawking Radiation. Thus, I do not rely on validity of Big Bang disproval to have valid model.

There needs to be a LOT more detail in this to be worth anything. At this point it is, frankly, a rather vague proposal with little to recommend it.