Might be a good idea to actually investigate the results of astronomical observation before one accepts these spurious claims.
1. Jupiter is not a “failed” star. It is large but it would need to be about 75 times its current mass to ignite nuclear fusion in its core and become a star. Astronomers have detected planets orbiting other stars with masses much greater than Jupiter.
2. Based on the current astronomical definition of a “brown dwarf” (which the EU folks seem to accept) Jupiter does not qualify. Jupiter would have to be at least 13 times its current mass. My understanding is that Jupiter also lacks the requisite amount of deuterium found in real brown dwarfs although I would have to check this.
3. Do you accept the evidence of your own senses? ** you do not have permission to see this link ** is a jpeg of 20 nearby stars surrounded by protoplanetary accretion discs. Perhaps seeing them with your own eyes is not enough?
4. Google “planetary migration”. This hair-raising idea seems to account for the so-called “Hot Jupiters”.
Jupiter and Mercury formed in the northern jet.
Saturn and Earth formed in the southern jet.
The Sun captured Jupiter and Mercury.
Saturn and Earth caught up to the Sun which captured them.
The video clearly informs viewers Jupiter and Saturn were reduced
FROM brown dwarf status
TO gas giant status.
Listening, comprehending, and prioritizing are important. This thread clearly announces the importance of the creation story in Genesis.
The Earth was not formed in proximity with Jupiter, north of the Sun.
The Earth was formed in proximity with Saturn, south of the Sun.
Which former brown dwarf celestial body is more important to Genesis (beginnings on Earth)? The answer clearly is Saturn, not Jupiter.
I am not corrupting the hypothesis of this video by failing to realize it informs viewers that Sun capture reduced brown dwarf – like celestial bodies to gas giant status.
The video clearly informs viewers Jupiter and Saturn were reduced
FROM brown dwarf status
TO gas giant status.
Yes, well that was a claim made without a scrap of evidence. Brown Dwarf stars have a life cycle, size and composition distinct from gas giants. (For example they have an active lifespan that is very short, only about 10 million years.) When a Brown Dwarf dies you don’t have a gas giant you have a dead Brown Dwarf.
That photo of the protoplanetary accretion discs puts paid to a literal interpretation of Genesis. New solar systems are forming by natural processes even as we chat so enjoyably.
Steefen the universe as revealed by scientific exploration is so jaw-droppingly amazing that I can’t help but wonder why anyone would still hang on to these long invalidated views of the cosmos. Next to the Big Bang the story of Adam and Eve in the garden is like a child’s tale.
Robert
Can someone please explain to me why this video and thread belong in the Hebrew Bible subforum?
Answer
The Book of Genesis is in the Hebrew Bible, not the New Testament. Of course, Genesis is what prompts readers to associate God with space.
That is the importance of the first chapter of Genesis.
Can anyone explain to me why Robert does not understand that and why he didn’t ask the question
I understand the way God created the universe/solar system/cosmos or whatever Genesis tried to explain speaks to cosmology.
I understand why for decades there Genesis has been referenced with respect to the Big Bang and even evolution.
You want to remove God’s creation of existence in the universe, the book of Genesis OUT of the Hebrew Bible?
Can someone please explain to me why this video and thread belong in the Hebrew Bible subforum?
By the impenetrable laws of thread drift elucidated most notably by the philosopher Hagbard Celine who says he learned everything he needed to know about human nature by playing piano in a brothel.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)