Saturday, March 18, 2023

Good Nomenclature: A Matter of Life and Death - 5

Vesta: Surface Hypotheses

I. Religious Background

In the previous post of this series I mentioned that the next post would involve a discussion of the impact of the Hebrew word "hayah" used in ancient texts and the King James Bible (KJV).

So, let's do that in the context of both the concept of The Big Bang and concept of The Creation.

The word's use in the KJV is detailed in today's Appendix GN hayah.

So, verse 1 of Genesis 1 in the KJV is "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth" and the following verse is "And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.".

The rub comes with the translation of the Hebrew word "hayah" in verse 2 into the English word "was".

The meaning that some readers interpret from the two verses is that the Earth was created "without form, and void".

Other readers say that a better translation of the Hebrew word "hayah" in verse 2 would be "became".

The difference in the two interpretations is based on the position that God does not create things "without form, and void" and that the "without form, and void" happened later during the "war in heaven" (Wikipedia, War In Heaven).

II. Religious Background

Bear with me while I present to you the current foundational position of Western Science ... The Big Bang hypothesis ... which is also a religious hypothesis in the sense that it was set forth by a Catholic man of the cloth (as pointed out in the previous post) of this series:

"The big bang 'presbyteros' (Lemaître), spoke and wrote in a 'presbyteros language' which the laity did not understand (Use of Latin in the Roman Catholic Church, Ecclesiastical Latin, The Day the Mass Changed, How it Happened and Why)."

(Good Nomenclature: A Matter of Life and Death - 4). The religious priest's Big Bang hypothesis was initially rejected by scientists:

"For example, when the priest scientist Lemaître made up the big bang hypothesis which challenged scientific papers in scientific journals of that time, Einstein said of the priest's hypothesis:

"Lemaître described his theory as 'the Cosmic Egg exploding at the moment of the creation'; it became better known as the 'Big Bang theory', a phrase originally used sarcastically ... This challenged the established finite-size static universe model proposed by Einstein. Einstein refuted Lemaître’s theory, saying 'your math is correct, but your physics is abominable' ... [BUT Einstein later said it was] 'the most beautiful and satisfactory explanation of creation to which I have ever listened.'”

(ibid). So, we have a religious hypothesis and a religious hypothesis to deal with, neither of which convinces everyone in religion or science:

"And if you think about evolution, you know where we've come to, but you don't know where we began. So origins of life is one of the most challenging problems facing science. Actually, as my friend and colleague Nick Lane says, it's the black hole of science. It's an embarrassment. And it's a very complicated problem." -Dr. Falkowski"

(Quantum Biology - 16). The original "opinion" Dr. Einstein had concerning the priest's Big Bang hypothesis is the Dredd Blog "opinion" still ("a man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still") as was detailed, and I do mean detailed, as follows:

"... The Origin of Ubiquitous
Brought To You By Firesign Theatre

This arrangement of atoms is found in humans, animals, and bacteria so it is very ubiquitous in carbon based life forms.

Fig. 3 C-G base pair

These atoms make-up the codons featured in the tables presented in appendices of previous posts in this series (Appendix QB.7.1, Appendix QB.7.2, Appendix QB.7.3, Appendix QB.7.4, Appendix QB.7.5, Appendix QB.7.6, Appendix QB.7.7, Appendix QB.7.8; Appendix QB.8.1).

Thus, when we discuss "their arrangement in space" we are covering a very important subject in terms of how they do what they do.

That is not easily within our grasp because we have to do the goo goo doll thingy.

The problem with this carbon-based picture is that carbon is a "late-bloomer" (compared to the other dolls):

"The Big Bang was not an explosion in space, as the theory's name might suggest. Instead, it was [natural doll and selection doll quivering, causing] the appearance of space [space doll] everywhere in the universe [universe doll], researchers have said. According to the Big Bang theory, the universe was born [dolls R born] as a very hot, very dense, single point in space [space doll and universe doll are hot, dense, and single].

Cosmologists are unsure what happened before this moment" (Space).

So, the hot doll, a.k.a. universe doll, banged but did not explode, but the doll scientists do not know why it didn't choose to explode (gay dolls?).

Then the universe doll and space doll looked around at the environment [environment doll] and decided that the best thing to do was to change and become a gas or two while having an expansive feeding frenzy:

"When the universe [doll] was very young — something like a hundredth of a billionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a second (whew!) [the time doll was not conjured until shortly after that] — it underwent an incredible growth spurt. During this burst of expansion, which is known as inflation [inflation doll], the universe [doll] grew exponentially and doubled in size at least 90 times [what about space doll and environment doll?]."

Fig. 4 First Doll Uterus

"The universe [doll] was expanding, and as it expanded, it got cooler and less dense [enlightenment]," David Spergel, a theoretical [doll] astrophysicist at Princeton University in Princeton, N.J., told After inflation, the universe [doll] continued to grow, but at a slower rate [diet doll]."

"As space [doll] expanded, the universe [doll] cooled and matter formed [matter doll]."

"Light chemical elements were created [light chemical dolls] within the first three minutes of the universe [doll's] formation. As the universe [doll] expanded, temperatures cooled and protons and neutrons collided [proton and neutron dolls] to make deuterium [deuterium doll], which is an isotope of hydrogen [of course dummy]. Much of this deuterium [deuterum doll] combined to make helium [helium and shelium dolls]."

"For the first 380,000 years after the Big Bang [bang doll], however, the intense heat [heat doll] from the universe's creation [heat doll was hot] made it essentially too hot for light to shine [it's dark inside hot dolls]. Atoms [atom dolls] crashed together with enough force [force doll] to break up into a dense, opaque plasma of protons, neutrons and electrons that scattered light like fog [fog doll]."(Space)

"Every carbon atom in the universe was created by stars [star dolls]" (ScienceDaily, emphasis added).

"So, what does that have to do with nucleotides, Dredd" you may be wondering, so, get ready for another dollar story (Big Bang nucleosynthesis).

After the doll stuff made doll stars, those doll stars made carbon dolls and released it in their nucleotide dolls (If Cosmology Is "Off," How Can Biology Be "On?").

Now "Small Things [but not too small molecules atoms] Considered" scientists can play Firesign Theatre with their dolls.

(Quantum Biology - 9). Thus, it would seem that perhaps the following evidence ought to be pondered carefully.

III. Astronomy Around Us

There has been a hypothesis called the "EPH" which has been discussed at length on Dredd Blog and in scientific journals to wit:

The Exploded Planet Hypothesis, (Weekend Rebel Science Excursion - 11, 46, Mars: Analyzing Layers of History - 2, Exploded Planet Hypothesis, 2 - see videos too), Dawn Mission Nears Ceres Orbit Maneuvers, 2, 3, Van Flandern, Phaeton - a hypothetical planet):

"Regular readers are aware of a hypothesis called the Exploded Planet Hypothesis (e.g. Weekend Rebel Science Excursion - 40) which I found out about in the scientific paper: The Challenge of the Exploded Planet Hypothesis, Cambridge Journals Online, International Journal of Astrobiology / Volume 6 / Issue 03 / July 2007, pp 185-197."

(Weekend Rebel Science Excursion - 46). Astronomers are of the same divided "opinion" on the religious nature of the problem, but less so on the scientific evidence.
 IV. Closing Comments

Thus, it behooves us to consider the roots of not only how we think, but the ingredients of "think" (The Pillars of Knowledge: Faith and Trust?).

The previous post in this series is here.

No comments:

Post a Comment