A Slightly Different Perspective

Post by **_Suzana** » Fri Nov 23, 2007 9:12 am

The Size of Our World

O Lord, our Lord, how majestic is Thy name in all the earth, Who hast displayed Thy splendor above the heavens!
Psalm 8:1

Post by **_Mort_Coyle** » Fri Nov 23, 2007 8:19 pm

That's really cool!

Post by **_Christopher** » Fri Nov 23, 2007 10:41 pm

Cool. I now know where the movie Beetlejuice got its name.

....iz a day, iz a day, iz a day

Post by **_Paidion** » Sat Nov 24, 2007 3:59 pm

Very impressive!

I must admit that it crossed my mind that "giant" stars such as Betelgeuse and Antares might actually be a lot smaller than is currently thought, and that distances to such stars might be far less.

My impression is that "measurements" of distances to distant stars are based on current theories of assessing distance which seem to be more like guess-work than valid means of measurement.

Post by **_Derek** » Sat Nov 24, 2007 7:39 pm

Wow. That's cool! Thanks for posting.

God bless,

Post by **_TK** » Mon Nov 26, 2007 8:02 am

Paidion wrote:Very impressive!

I must admit that it crossed my mind that "giant" stars such as Betelgeuse and Antares might actually be a lot smaller than is currently thought, and that distances to such stars might be far less.

My impression is that "measurements" of distances to distant stars are based on current theories of assessing distance which seem to be more like guess-work than valid means of measurement.

you've said this sort of thing before, and i think i understand what you mean. my question, though, is what type of "science" could convince you that Antares is as big as they say it is, or that certain celestial objects are millions of light years away? In other words, at what point is it "unfair" to say that the science must be wrong?

TK

Post by **_anothersteve** » Mon Nov 26, 2007 11:42 am

TK wrote,

you've said this sort of thing before, and i think i understand what you mean. my question, though, is what type of "science" could convince you that Antares is as big as they say it is, or that certain celestial objects are millions of light years away? In other words, at what point is it "unfair" to say that the science must be wrong?

I have a similar question TK. Thanks for bringing that up. The scientists seem to have our solar system figured out mathematically. Didn't they recently intercept a comet using mathematical calculations? So your question is a good one. At what point do the calculations come under deeper scrutiny?

PS...Thanks for posting that Suzana

Post by **_Rick_C** » Mon Nov 26, 2007 2:51 pm

The pictures from Suzana's link reminded me of when I was a kid and played marbles. How you'd try to "take your opponent's Eggies" (the big ones)....

When God creates the new heavens and new earth; how awesome is it that He will just 'roll it all up' and make things anew???

Too amazing to fathom, with all these rather quite 'large' stars & what-not!
(They don't call Him "GOD ALMIGHTY" for nothin)....

Good link, Suzana!
Rick

P.S. I'd like to get an Antares bowling ball: STRIKE!!!

Post by **_TK** » Mon Nov 26, 2007 6:09 pm

with an Antares sized bowling ball, you'd need an awfully long bowling alley; you might have to wait a few thousand years for the ball to hit the pins (assuming you roll it at normal speeds).

as far as the new heavens and new earth go, all God needs to do is create a tear in our time/space continuum and suck this universe through it and start over. or something like that. it is also entirely possible that i've watched too much Star Trek.

TK

Post by **_Allyn** » Mon Nov 26, 2007 6:52 pm

First of all, TK, you can never watch too much star trek. Secondly, um, uh, I guess there is no secondly. 8)