A Universe Without Stars

[Messianic Israelite]

For those who know what I stand for, you might be able to guess what this post is about. In my faith, we believe in all the stories of the Bible as things that did actually happen. What some people get puzzled by is the account in Genesis where stars were created on the fourth day of creation. In Genesis 1:1 it says that Elohim created the heavens and the earth. This for me includes the planets. But we go by the gap theory in which there may be thousands or even million years that elapsed between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2. My Bible says "And the earth became waste and void". Satan found a way to destroy the earth that then was. But my concern isn't of the earth, it's, can a universe exist without stars. Well, I was reading the news today and I came across this article: At Least 70 Mysterious Free-Floating Planets Found Near Our Solar System | Chemistry And Physics They are supposedly free-floating planets even in the Milky Way, showing that the universe could have existed without stars at one point. The reason I'm saying this is because I mentioned this to someone before I had even read this article, it being about a year ago, and they gave me a bit of a funny look. The Genesis account happened. Pluto's orbit around the Sun is unusual compared to the planets: it's both elliptical and tilted and erratic and this has puzzled scientists: it was no doubt a stray rock that was pulled in by the suns gravitation pull when the sun was suddenly created.

Why not believe the Genesis account? Many of the universe's puzzles can be explained when we accept the Word of Yahweh as true.

 

[Nakosis]

For those who know what I stand for, you might be able to guess what this post is about. In my faith, we believe in all the stories of the Bible as things that did actually happen. What some people get puzzled by is the account in Genesis where stars were created on the fourth day of creation. In Genesis 1:1 it says that Elohim created the heavens and the earth. This for me includes the planets. But we go by the gap theory in which there may be thousands or even million years that elapsed between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2. My Bible says "And the earth became waste and void". Satan found a way to destroy the earth that then was. But my concern isn't of the earth, it's, can a universe exist without stars. Well, I was reading the news today and I came across this article: At Least 70 Mysterious Free-Floating Planets Found Near Our Solar System | Chemistry And Physics They are supposedly free-floating planets even in the Milky Way, showing that the universe could have existed without stars at one point. The reason I'm saying this is because I mentioned this to someone before I had even read this article, it being about a year ago, and they gave me a bit of a funny look. The Genesis account happened. Pluto's orbit around the Sun is unusual compared to the planets: it's both elliptical and tilted and erratic and this has puzzled scientists: it was no doubt a stray rock that was pulled in by the suns gravitation pull when the sun was suddenly created.

Why not believe the Genesis account? Many of the universe's puzzles can be explained when we accept the Word of Yahweh as true.

For me, the problem with Genesis is the ability to assume the use of metaphorical language. Allows the interpretation of the Bible to support what one already happens to believe whereas IMO, there is no real way to determine what meaning was intended by the original authors.

Sure one can interpret the Bible in a way that makes perfect sense to them. Doesn't mean they are even close to being right.
I'd hope an omniscient being could come up with a better means to communicate to us than the Bible.

 

[Audie]

For those who know what I stand for, you might be able to guess what this post is about. In my faith, we believe in all the stories of the Bible as things that did actually happen. What some people get puzzled by is the account in Genesis where stars were created on the fourth day of creation. In Genesis 1:1 it says that Elohim created the heavens and the earth. This for me includes the planets. But we go by the gap theory in which there may be thousands or even million years that elapsed between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2. My Bible says "And the earth became waste and void". Satan found a way to destroy the earth that then was. But my concern isn't of the earth, it's, can a universe exist without stars. Well, I was reading the news today and I came across this article: At Least 70 Mysterious Free-Floating Planets Found Near Our Solar System | Chemistry And Physics They are supposedly free-floating planets even in the Milky Way, showing that the universe could have existed without stars at one point. The reason I'm saying this is because I mentioned this to someone before I had even read this article, it being about a year ago, and they gave me a bit of a funny look. The Genesis account happened. Pluto's orbit around the Sun is unusual compared to the planets: it's both elliptical and tilted and erratic and this has puzzled scientists: it was no doubt a stray rock that was pulled in by the suns gravitation pull when the sun was suddenly created.

Why not believe the Genesis account? Many of the universe's puzzles can be explained when we accept the Word of Yahweh as true.

Planets are made of star- barf.

But if one wants to just go with God can do
anything, sure.

Why not " just accept "?
Coz literal interpretation would keep us in the bronze age?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

can a universe exist without stars

Yes. Our universe has already existed without stars, for hundreds of millions of years before the first ones lit up: "According to the cosmological models, the first small systems capable of forming stars should have appeared between 100 million and 250 million years after the big bang."

 

[Suave]

For those who know what I stand for, you might be able to guess what this post is about. In my faith, we believe in all the stories of the Bible as things that did actually happen. What some people get puzzled by is the account in Genesis where stars were created on the fourth day of creation. In Genesis 1:1 it says that Elohim created the heavens and the earth. This for me includes the planets. But we go by the gap theory in which there may be thousands or even million years that elapsed between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2. My Bible says "And the earth became waste and void". Satan found a way to destroy the earth that then was. But my concern isn't of the earth, it's, can a universe exist without stars. Well, I was reading the news today and I came across this article: At Least 70 Mysterious Free-Floating Planets Found Near Our Solar System | Chemistry And Physics They are supposedly free-floating planets even in the Milky Way, showing that the universe could have existed without stars at one point. The reason I'm saying this is because I mentioned this to someone before I had even read this article, it being about a year ago, and they gave me a bit of a funny look. The Genesis account happened. Pluto's orbit around the Sun is unusual compared to the planets: it's both elliptical and tilted and erratic and this has puzzled scientists: it was no doubt a stray rock that was pulled in by the suns gravitation pull when the sun was suddenly created.

Why not believe the Genesis account? Many of the universe's puzzles can be explained when we accept the Word of Yahweh as true.

I suspect the primordial solar system nebula might have been seeded by elements heavier than helium, including the oxygen in our water, produced by an earlier supernovae from a star which of course had to be older than the sun. Right?

Multiple supernovas may have implanted our solar system with the seeds of planets

 

[Twilight Hue]

For those who know what I stand for, you might be able to guess what this post is about. In my faith, we believe in all the stories of the Bible as things that did actually happen. What some people get puzzled by is the account in Genesis where stars were created on the fourth day of creation. In Genesis 1:1 it says that Elohim created the heavens and the earth. This for me includes the planets. But we go by the gap theory in which there may be thousands or even million years that elapsed between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2. My Bible says "And the earth became waste and void". Satan found a way to destroy the earth that then was. But my concern isn't of the earth, it's, can a universe exist without stars. Well, I was reading the news today and I came across this article: At Least 70 Mysterious Free-Floating Planets Found Near Our Solar System | Chemistry And Physics They are supposedly free-floating planets even in the Milky Way, showing that the universe could have existed without stars at one point. The reason I'm saying this is because I mentioned this to someone before I had even read this article, it being about a year ago, and they gave me a bit of a funny look. The Genesis account happened. Pluto's orbit around the Sun is unusual compared to the planets: it's both elliptical and tilted and erratic and this has puzzled scientists: it was no doubt a stray rock that was pulled in by the suns gravitation pull when the sun was suddenly created.

Why not believe the Genesis account? Many of the universe's puzzles can be explained when we accept the Word of Yahweh as true.

I don't see how Genesis could ever be valid.

The reality by which the sciences in their respective fields has already discovered and confirmed, like the formation of planets and solar systems, is a lot older and stable enough that predates the dawn of humanity itself.

Humans were not even around during the earth's formation, making it impossible for Genesis to be even remotely correct.

 

[John D. Brey]

For those who know what I stand for, you might be able to guess what this post is about. In my faith, we believe in all the stories of the Bible as things that did actually happen. What some people get puzzled by is the account in Genesis where stars were created on the fourth day of creation. In Genesis 1:1 it says that Elohim created the heavens and the earth. This for me includes the planets. But we go by the gap theory in which there may be thousands or even million years that elapsed between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2. My Bible says "And the earth became waste and void". Satan found a way to destroy the earth that then was. But my concern isn't of the earth, it's, can a universe exist without stars. Well, I was reading the news today and I came across this article: At Least 70 Mysterious Free-Floating Planets Found Near Our Solar System | Chemistry And Physics They are supposedly free-floating planets even in the Milky Way, showing that the universe could have existed without stars at one point. The reason I'm saying this is because I mentioned this to someone before I had even read this article, it being about a year ago, and they gave me a bit of a funny look. The Genesis account happened. Pluto's orbit around the Sun is unusual compared to the planets: it's both elliptical and tilted and erratic and this has puzzled scientists: it was no doubt a stray rock that was pulled in by the suns gravitation pull when the sun was suddenly created.

Why not believe the Genesis account? Many of the universe's puzzles can be explained when we accept the Word of Yahweh as true.

As you clearly know, the veracity of the Bible is without question. So when it appears to say things that contradict our current scientific-knowledge, it's the feebleness of the current scientific-knowledge, and not the statements in the Bible, that cause the problem; it's a problem of interpretation, and not the Bible being wrong: it never is.

I hold to the Chaos theory (or Gap theory) as you note above. God didn't create anything without form תהו or as a void בהו. And interpreted correctly, the earth "became" היתה contaminated with these states of godless form.

The interpretation of the Hebrew of Genesis chapter one as found in the Masoretic Text (transferred to the English translations) is a crime against a literal interpretation of the text. Throughout the English text (and thus the MT) words, and tenses, are distorted in order to create ******* readings of the text. That these ******* readings are still considered orthodoxy, at this late date, is a tragedy that I assume will soon be remedied (or at least will be remedied in God's good time).

Correct knowledge of the Creation, Chaos, and Restoration (see book by that name authored by Col. R.B. Thieme, Jr.) of the earth is part and parcel of a correct interpretation of the Hebrew of Genesis chapter one.

At the cataclysmic fall of the earth into "without form and void" the canopy of water vapor that surrounded the earth (making it a veritable terrarium) froze into an ice-pack similar to the rings around Saturn, the earth was enveloped in a shroud of ice such that no light, or very little light, shown through. On the fourth day, the ice in the atmosphere melted so that the stars, sun, and moon, shown through onto earth, for the first time since earth was thrown into the state of tohu wabohu (without form and void).

The six days of restoration (not creation) are given from the viewpoint of earth and not the viewpoint of some Archimedean perch. It wasn't till the fourth day that the sun moon or stars could be viewed from earth. The text says אלהים ירא כי טוב "God saw that it was good," with emphasis on "saw." The text is speaking from the viewpoint of earth, what can be seen from earth, and not from some abstract scientific frame of reference.

Hermeutics and proper isagogics require that the scripture be interpreted from the viewpoint of the time of writing. At the time of writing, writers spoke from the viewpoint of earth as the center of the universe. They did not write, or understand writing, in the modern scientific sense. They didn't think from the perspective of some abstract scientific viewpoint. Everything is stated from the perspective of earth. Nothing seems clearer from the proper reading of the text than that its written from the ancient perspective of earth as the central point through which all reality is observed. This isn't a weakness of the text. It's merely the nature of the way revelation occurs. It's always couched in the language, and frame of reverence, of the contemporary audience, and not in the modern scientific language and perspective we have today.



John

 

[Suave]

Planets are made of star- barf.

But if one wants to just go with God can do
anything, sure.

Why not " just accept "?
Coz literal interpretation would keep us in the bronze age?

I have been taught that the primordial solar system was seeded with elements heavier than helium by matter ejected by older stars having gone super nova., this would mean stars had existed before the Earth. Hence, I find the Genesis claim of stars not appearing in the Earth's sky until after there were plants on Earth to be rather quite dubious.

 

[viole]

For those who know what I stand for, you might be able to guess what this post is about. In my faith, we believe in all the stories of the Bible as things that did actually happen. What some people get puzzled by is the account in Genesis where stars were created on the fourth day of creation. In Genesis 1:1 it says that Elohim created the heavens and the earth. This for me includes the planets. But we go by the gap theory in which there may be thousands or even million years that elapsed between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2. My Bible says "And the earth became waste and void". Satan found a way to destroy the earth that then was. But my concern isn't of the earth, it's, can a universe exist without stars. Well, I was reading the news today and I came across this article: At Least 70 Mysterious Free-Floating Planets Found Near Our Solar System | Chemistry And Physics They are supposedly free-floating planets even in the Milky Way, showing that the universe could have existed without stars at one point. The reason I'm saying this is because I mentioned this to someone before I had even read this article, it being about a year ago, and they gave me a bit of a funny look. The Genesis account happened. Pluto's orbit around the Sun is unusual compared to the planets: it's both elliptical and tilted and erratic and this has puzzled scientists: it was no doubt a stray rock that was pulled in by the suns gravitation pull when the sun was suddenly created.

Why not believe the Genesis account? Many of the universe's puzzles can be explained when we accept the Word of Yahweh as true.

Well, you cannot have earth and water, before the stars. For obvious reasons. That is why we believe your holy book has been written by bronze age goat herders without a clue, and not by a God who should know better.

ciao

- viole

 

[Audie]

I have been taught that the primordial solar system was seeded with elements heavier than helium by matter ejected by older stars having gone super nova., this would mean stars had existed before the Earth. Hence, I find the Genesis claim of stars not appearing in the Earth's sky until after there were plants on Earth to be rather quite dubious.

Star barf b4 star is dubious? : D

 

[Nakosis]

Planets are made of star- barf.

But if one wants to just go with God can do
anything, sure.

Why not " just accept "?
Coz literal interpretation would keep us in the bronze age?

Star-barf.

 

[Suave]

Well, you cannot have earth and water, before the stars. For obvious reasons. That is why we believe your holy book has been written by bronze age goat herders without a clue, and not by a God who should know better.

ciao

- viole

The nuclear fusion of stars produces elements with an atomic mass greater than hydrogen, without this process, would not the universe be void of any molecular substance?

 

[exchemist]

For those who know what I stand for, you might be able to guess what this post is about. In my faith, we believe in all the stories of the Bible as things that did actually happen. What some people get puzzled by is the account in Genesis where stars were created on the fourth day of creation. In Genesis 1:1 it says that Elohim created the heavens and the earth. This for me includes the planets. But we go by the gap theory in which there may be thousands or even million years that elapsed between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2. My Bible says "And the earth became waste and void". Satan found a way to destroy the earth that then was. But my concern isn't of the earth, it's, can a universe exist without stars. Well, I was reading the news today and I came across this article: At Least 70 Mysterious Free-Floating Planets Found Near Our Solar System | Chemistry And Physics They are supposedly free-floating planets even in the Milky Way, showing that the universe could have existed without stars at one point. The reason I'm saying this is because I mentioned this to someone before I had even read this article, it being about a year ago, and they gave me a bit of a funny look. The Genesis account happened. Pluto's orbit around the Sun is unusual compared to the planets: it's both elliptical and tilted and erratic and this has puzzled scientists: it was no doubt a stray rock that was pulled in by the suns gravitation pull when the sun was suddenly created.

Why not believe the Genesis account? Many of the universe's puzzles can be explained when we accept the Word of Yahweh as true.

Because it makes no sense from a scientific point of view. I'm not at all surprised you got a funny look.

But it's hardly worth going through all the reasons, yet again, with someone like you whose mind is already made up. Carry on, by all means, but expect to continue to get plenty of funny looks.

 

[Suave]

Star barf b4 star is dubious? : D

I actually concur with the notion of our solar system having been formed from star barf. Computer modeling indicates our Solar System was born from the ashes a dead star.,

"Meteorites could very well be bits of our primordial solar nebula, left virtually untouched since they formed. This means their isotopic signature could spell out the conditions that existed within the molecular cloud at the time of its collapse. One strong factor in this composition is the amount of aluminium-26 – an element with a radioactive half-life of 700,000 years. In effect, this means it only takes a relatively minor period of time for the ratio between Al-26 and Al-24 to change.

“The time-scale for the formation events of our Solar System can be derived from the decay products of radioactive elements found in meteorites. Short lived radionuclides (SLRs) such as 26Al , 41Ca, 53Mn and 60Fe can be employed as high-precision and high-resolution chronometers due to their short half-lives.” says M. Gritschneder (et al). “These SLRs are found in a wide variety of Solar System materials, including calcium-aluminium-rich inclusions (CAIs) in primitive chondrites.”

However, it would seem that a class of carbonaceous chondrite meteorites known CV-chondrites, have a bit more than their fair share of Al-26 in their structure. Is it the smoking gun of an event which may have enriched the cloud that formed it? Isotope measurements are also indicative of time – and here we have two examples of meteorites which formed within 20,000 years of each other – yet are significantly different. What could have caused the abundance of Al-26 and caused fast formation?

However, it would seem that a class of carbonaceous chondrite meteorites known CV-chondrites, have a bit more than their fair share of Al-26 in their structure. Is it the smoking gun of an event which may have enriched the cloud that formed it? Isotope measurements are also indicative of time – and here we have two examples of meteorites which formed within 20,000 years of each other – yet are significantly different. What could have caused the abundance of Al-26 and caused fast formation?

“The general picture we adopt here is that a certain amount of Al-26 is injected in the nascent solar nebula and then gets incorporated into the earliest formed CAIs as soon as the temperature drops below the condensation temperature of CAI minerals. Therefore, the CAIs found in chondrites represent the first known solid objects that crystalized within our Solar System and can be used as an anchor point to determine the formation time-scale of our Solar System.” explains Gritschneder. “The extremely small time-span together with the highly homogeneous mixing of isotopes poses a severe challenge for theoretical models on the formation of our Solar System. Various theoretical scenarios for the formation of the Solar System have been discussed. Shortly after the discovery of SLRs, it was proposed that they were injected by a nearby massive star. This can happen either via a supernova explosion or by the strong winds of a Wolf-Rayet star.”

While these two theories are great, only one problem remains… Distinguishing the difference between the two events. So Matthias Gritschneder of Peking University in Beijing and his colleagues set to work designing a computer simulation. Biased towards the supernova event, the model demonstrates what happens when a shockwave encounters a molecular cloud. The results are an appropriate proportion of Al-26 – and a resultant solar system formation.

“After discussing various scenarios including X-winds, AGB stars and Wolf-Rayet stars, we come to the conclusion that triggering the collapse of a cold cloud core by a nearby supernova is the most promising scenario. We then narrow down the vast parameter space by considering the pre-explosion survivability of such a clump as well as the cross-section necessary for sufficient enrichment.” says Gritschneder. “We employ numerical simulations to address the mixing of the radioactively enriched SN gas with the pre-existing gas and the forced collapse within 20 kyr. We show that a cold clump at a distance of 5 pc can be sufficiently enriched in Al-26 and triggered into collapse fast enough – within 18 kyr after encountering the supernova shock – for a range of different metallicities and progenitor masses, even if the enriched material is assumed to be distributed homogeneously in the entire supernova bubble. In summary, we show that the triggered collapse and formation of the Solar System as well as the required enrichment with radioactive 26Al are possible in this scenario.”

While there are still other isotope ratios yet to be explained and further modeling done, it’s a step toward the future understanding of how solar systems form.

Did A Supernova Shape Our Solar System? - Universe Today

 

[Suave]

Because it makes no sense from a scientific point of view. I'm not at all surprised you got a funny look.

But it's hardly worth going through all the reasons, yet again, with someone like you whose mind is already made up. Carry on, by all means, but expect to continue to get plenty of funny looks.

A new study has given credence to the hypothesis that our solar system was created as a result of a distant supernova.
Perhaps if there are many scientific studies conclusively indicating our solar system formed as a result of a supernova, then please let us be confident the OP's author will reconsider the notion of the Earth having existed prior to any stars.

Astronomer's modeling show how low-mass supernova created our solar system -- Sott.net

 

[ChristineM]

The early universe was hydrogen.. It was initially far too hot and uniform to create other atoms. As it expanded and cooled some helium was formed. Around 150 to 200 million years past before these atoms collided enough to form groups and the uniformity of the universe broke up as gravity (a concequence of the group's of hydrogen and helium atoms) pulled more and more atoms into the groups.

The groups grew, their gravity increased until the pressure at their centre allowed fusion to occur, the first stars (Recent observation of star nurseries has shown this process is quite fast). Hot, blue stars (almost pure hydrogen) live fast and die young. Their size dictated the form of their death which created the first elements, those with low atomic weights.

Second generation stars began to form using the abundance of hydrogen and the other elements from those first generation stars. Some of those stars burned out and died spectacularly creating even heavier elements up to and including iron. However some start's went supernova, it is these supernova that produce elements heavier than iron.

Planets tende to form at the same time as, or very soon after their stars. Accreted from the residue elements left behind as the fledgling sun began to form.

In some cases a suns death did not consume it's planets which gave rise to rogue planets wandering free until and if they were captured by another nearby suns gravity?

There are now 3rd and 4th generation suns in our universe, limited by the formation of iron. When the sun begins to form iron it is the final stage in the suns development.

This is a quick overview of how i understand the sun and planets of our universe formed. There is much more involved, black holes, galaxies, galactic filaments etc. My view is based on scientific discoveries, cosmological and astronomical observations. No bible involved.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

As you clearly know, the veracity of the Bible is without question. So when it appears to say things that contradict our current scientific-knowledge, it's the feebleness of the current scientific-knowledge, and not the statements in the Bible, that cause the problem; it's a problem of interpretation, and not the Bible being wrong: it never is.

That exactly the wrong way to process evidence. We properly go dispassionately from evidence to sound conclusion via valid reasoning. Open-mindedness is the ability and willingness to do that, closed-mindedness the opposite.

One you decide what you will find by faith, you're not doing science any more, and your "conclusions" will be what you have guessed is true whatever is actually the case. You will have cut yourself off from understanding disconfirming evidence, and with it, any chance of converting a wrong idea to a correct one. Your mind is closed for business. Evidence has no value to you unless you think you can use it to support your "conclusions," meaning looking at only after you have decided, and disregarding whatever is contradictory. This is the definition of closed-mindedness.

Incidentally, I put conclusions in quotes, because conclusions follow from arguments. These are premises, but put at the end of a fallacious argument constructed post hoc by massaging evidence to appear that the premise was derived from it. I call them pseudo-conclusions.

But you come by it honestly. These first two quotes are from prominent, influential theologians. They are telling you as you have told us that their minds are closed for business. There is no such thing as contradictory data for any of you:

• [1] "The way in which I know Christianity is true is first and foremost on the basis of the witness of the Holy Spirit in my heart. And this gives me a self-authenticating means of knowing Christianity is true wholly apart from the evidence. And therefore, even if in some historically contingent circumstances the evidence that I have available to me should turn against Christianity, I do not think that this controverts the witness of the Holy Spirit. In such a situation, I should regard that as simply a result of the contingent circumstances that I'm in, and that if I were to pursue this with due diligence and with time, I would discover that the evidence, if in fact I could get the correct picture, would support exactly what the witness of the Holy Spirit tells me. So I think that's very important to get the relationship between faith and reason right..." - William Lane Craig

• [2] "The moderator in the debate between Bill Nye and Ken Ham on whether creationism is a viable scientific field of study asked, 'What would change your minds?' Scientist Bill Nye answered, 'Evidence.' Young Earth Creationist Ken Ham answered, 'Nothing. I'm a Christian.' Elsewhere, Ham stated, 'By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record."

Sound familiar?

Here are some lesser known names saying essentially the same thing as you, Craig, and Ham:

• [3] “If somewhere in the Bible I were to find a passage that said 2 + 2 = 5, I wouldn't question what I am reading in the Bible. I would believe it, accept it as true, and do my best to work it out and understand it."- Pastor Peter laRuffa

• [4] “When science and the Bible differ, science has obviously misinterpreted its data. The only Bible-honoring conclusion is, of course, that Genesis 1-11 is actual historical truth, regardless of any scientific or chronological problems thereby entailed.” - creationist Henry Morris

The nuclear fusion of stars produces elements with an atomic mass greater than hydrogen, without this process, would not the universe be void of any molecular substance?

There would still be H2, which is a diatomic molecule.

 

[Suave]

There would still be H2, which is a diatomic molecule.

I stand corrected, thank you. Besides, H2, could there be any other molecular substance without involving the nuclear fusion of stars?

 

[ChristineM]

I stand corrected, thank you. Besides, H2, could there be any other molecular substance without the nuclear fusion of stars?

Helium, possibly some lithium

 

[Suave]

Helium, possibly some lithium

Elements, yes, I was wondering though if molecules like H2O could have naturally formed without involving the process of nuclear fusion.