Star of Bethlehem really pointed from Babylon to Jerusalem

[sevenseas]

I want to discuss this data published by the Observatory of Lisbon. (This data is from year 7 BC which is the accepted date of Jesus birth)

 

 

 

http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/114078-Observatory-of-Lisbon-Star-of-Bethlehem-a-scientific-fact

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=qZox-G5r6_c

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_conjunction

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.starrynig...rth&Explore=No

 

http://www.starrynig...rth&Explore=No

 

http://www.starrynig...rth&Explore=No

 

http://www.starrynig...rth&Explore=No

Edited November 16, 2011 by sevenseas

[John L]

Hasn't this been pretty much established for some time now? I recall one or two Science/History Channel programs that discussed the theory.

 

And it makes sense too. Of course that doesn't detract from the possibility that it may have had a purpose .

 

But what are you driving at here? You are just throwing out something and not giving your own hypothesis.

[baric]

(This data is from year 7 BC which is the accepted date of Jesus birth)

 

This is untrue.

[John L]

This is untrue.

 

I agree that it is not universally accepted as that date.

 

However, if the Jupiter/Saturn link is true, and it makes a very persuasive point, then the date will be pretty solid, even if the majority of people are unaware of it.

 

And that still does not detract from the premises of Yeshua/Jesus being born then and there. The time is just changed, that's all.

[Mr Skeptic]

Why should the star have "pointed" to where Jesus was born, or any other location? It would have sufficed for the Magi to have recognized the star as a sign that they should start searching for the King, and been able to recognize Him. It's not as though you can actually point to a particular spot on Earth with a star, what with it rotating and stuff.

[John L]

Why should the star have "pointed" to where Jesus was born, or any other location? It would have sufficed for the Magi to have recognized the star as a sign that they should start searching for the King, and been able to recognize Him. It's not as though you can actually point to a particular spot on Earth with a star, what with it rotating and stuff.

 

Perhaps they really were informed, by some thing, or some one, to head that way?

 

I'm not sure if you are steering toward the 'religious' or 'antireligious' POV, so I don't know what you want.

[superball]

Why should the star have "pointed" to where Jesus was born, or any other location? It would have sufficed for the Magi to have recognized the star as a sign that they should start searching for the King, and been able to recognize Him. It's not as though you can actually point to a particular spot on Earth with a star, what with it rotating and stuff.

 

The story of religion is similar all over the world.

Remember they were dealing specifically with a new star, and researchers may have studied it for some time before trying to get a better view.

We have Easter Island, and some very large monoliths facing a specific direction, possibly a place on earth were it was viewable.

 

How can a star be followed? If the stars Is poynting in relation to the observer.

 

I would follow the yellow brick road to find a solution.

 

 

"Pointed"

 

Much love super-ball

Edited November 22, 2011 by superball

[sevenseas]

The story of religion is similar all over the world.

Remember they were dealing specifically with a new star, and researchers may have studied it for some time before trying to get a better view.

We have Easter Island, and some very large monoliths facing a specific direction, possibly a place on earth were it was viewable.

 

How can a star be followed? If the stars Is poynting in relation to the observer.

 

I would follow the yellow brick road to find a solution.

 

 

"Pointed"

 

Much love super-ball

 

The star at decline pointed from Babylon city to Jerusalem for 4 months, steady, less than 0.1 degrees variation.

 

[superball]

the pole shifting. the magnetic field represented as a man holding the spherical field magnet. 3 object being pulled, the men holding hands.

 

 

dictating spin direction clockwise around our solar system. solar system is rotating counter clock wise around the sun. poynting vector glyph .

 

 

The asymmetric field magnet

 

 

The poynting vector vector, sincerely super ball

 

 

Meet the modern day dipole, it was my discovery, derived from my inner perception, and philosophy.

 

 

Peace always.. Respectfully super-ball

Edited November 24, 2011 by superball

[Klaynos]

!

Moderator Note

I feel this has strayed into religion from anything like astronomy. Moved.

[doG]

Science knows that the light rays of any star striking the Earth strike it equally across the exposed side of the Earth facing that star. To suggest it points more to some specific religious location on Earth is a religious argument.

[mooeypoo]

== EDITED ==

 

 

You know, the original poster supplied links to BAUT forum, where the video/idea was already discussed, and the posters there make incredibly good points.

(Please remember, to avoid plagiarism and be fair, if you link to anything someone else said, be it in a forum or a website, supply the full link-back and credit)

 

 

The video starts off by claiming to be an enactment of a close approach of Saturn and Jupiter in the sky on Dec 24, year 0. That is certainly false--their close approach in 7BC has often been claimed to the Star, they are nowhere near close in year 0, or year 1 BC, or year 1AD. It takes another twenty years or so for them to get together again.

link: http://www.bautforum...097#post1870097

 

Another point, is that the event is claimed to be at 7BC, not 0, and I'm not sure who defines "7BC" is the birth of Jesus rather than 1AD, which is by definition the birth of Jesus according to Christianity.

 

 

Finally, I don't see the point of any of this. Even if it is true that there was a start that shone brighter - that was not and will not be the first time that ancient folk see amazing phenomenon and attach a religious/unique meaning to it. It's not only in Christianity, either, and it's not confined to that period of time.

 

Human beings make imaginative explanations to what they don't understand. Even *if* that star was there, it proves absolutely nothing about anything in Christianity, other than people saw it and had no idea what "star" actually means, therefore attached a religious meaning to it.

 

Ancient Egyptians thought the Sun was a god; they worshipped it and followed a lot of phenomena associated with it, including the occasional solar eclipses. They explained it by Ra's different moods, and it was consistent in their religion. I don't think there's anyone that suggests that the fact the eclipses were TRUE EVENTS it means that Ra existed, or that there's any merit to the Egyptian Gods' stories.

 

I'm not quite sure what the point is in this "idea", really.

 

~mooey

[John Cuthber]

Let's be clear about this. A statement like

"Meet the modern day dipole, it was my discovery, derived from my inner perception, and philosophy."

has nothing to do with science.

[Athena]

other science please, not religion.

 

please vote for a compromise, I make my claim.

 

Vote other science. symbols of our moral fibers.

 

!

Moderator Note

I feel this has strayed into religion from anything like astronomy. Moved.

 

I diplomatically ask, and state my claim.

 

Please do not subject your own history to ridicule.

 

This is clearly, archaeology, astronomy. They are our ancestors, please do not ridicule here or i will report. A valid scientific study, and scientists don't claim this as religion.

 

I urge do not post if you have negative input and attack, Do not confuse with religion.

 

respectfully super ball.

 

please vote other

 

Sincerely super-ball

 

A very good place to discuss things like this is

 

http://www.unexplain...orum/index.php?

 

of course there are fewer science people there, but some are well informed, and it does not have the bias a science forum. Sometimes I find science purist too restrictive, and not so different from the church of old. Putting a mystery in religion, does prevent the desired discussion, and can be very frustrating.

 

This account of the star of Bethlehem mixes astronomy with history, as have other post in this thread.

 

http://www.eclipse.net/~molnar/

Edited November 25, 2011 by Athena

[mooeypoo]

== EDITED ==

 

A very good place to discuss things like this is

 

http://www.unexplain...orum/index.php?

 

of course there are fewer science people there, but some are well informed, and it does not have the bias a science forum. Sometimes I find science purist too restrictive, and not so different from the church of old. Putting a mystery in religion, does prevent the desired discussion, and can be very frustrating.

 

It all depends what the poster wants, really. If they are looking for a place with people who will automatically bow down to his ideas and worship his notions, then there are quitea number of forums out there that don't deal with science. However, I don't think it's too much surprise to come to a science-forum and watch the posters argue about .. oh.. I don't know.. science.

 

 

The only other option for this thread is "Speculation" forum. There's no way this unscientific discussion goes to the mainstream science forums, I'm sure everyone recognizes that. So, perhaps, speculation. Thing is -- this is religious in nature. I know that the OP and superball seem to wnt to claim it has nothing to do with religion, but their posts say otherwise.

 

Now please, let's stop arguing about WHERE this thread is, and start discussing WHAT this thread is about.

 

~mooey

[Phi for All]

!

Moderator Note

Off-topic posts have been removed. I'm going to move this to the Speculations forum strictly because the thread started out attempting science but moved to more religious responses. If it can continue in a scientific vein we can leave it here, otherwise it will be moved back to Religion.

[superball]

We simply determine time sensitive cycles by observation.

we simply relay the message to future generation.

we simply look for evidence of the star today. That much is clear. A given statement is not self falsified, it remains true.

we simply don't assume, and include more information, we can safely reach conclusions.

I simply say we have a clear object poynting. I simply say creating an increase of net flux, or a force interacting.

simply show how one must determine.

I include reinforcing factor.

we ask if this is possible, and assume it is. It is a verifying factor. It (accounts for the wealth of knowledge in a given frame.)

we reflect on what we see, and then relate it to reality.

we are attempting to verify. time frames give rise, and are verifying factors. apply what is self evident.

The vector energy is relative to the observer. we assume this as a given, and is changing.

 

We find validating scientific evidence. we present it for conclusions. the axiom it is true, therefore we continue along these lines until the likely hood of it occurring in the future is verified. .

when the amount of observable input is sufficient, we learn gravity points by itself. we find the given angle provided by an even more ancient time frame. verify the claim of axiom. all is true until proven otherwise.

the dipole relating to a cassimir effect, and red shift. the star seen today in the east. the flux and energy is inducing a net force in the vacuum of space, in relation with the apparent electric field. if it is poynting it is generating the flux, and energy as described. attribute with observable data, and the conclusions are by certain well known scientific principles.

I have passed the ball on this, the next man must charge for success in its relation, describe the how, and why. If a object can point as a vector in space. this is due to location pinpointing energy. it is a changing relation, gravity is plume waving. It is an automatic generating force. We say it is so, and therefore use data to make the determination of the task at hand,

this simply means gravity type lensing would occur, it also states all by itself that is true.

the object stated is a star. the other a possible companion, is verifying in relation. No other assumption is needed. The object that is poynting.

Energy in a system, Verifiable today. it has also been verified yesterday, and is verifiable in the future.

each picture I posted is in relation to well known scientific principles. representative by the symbols provided. It is relative to an observer, it still continues in the line of scientific study today. The specific year of first observation is therefore estimated. The ball has been passed for you to observe. external net force precession.

Great earthquakes resulting in net force, torque times delta T.

 

cheers.

[phantom]

 

Another point, is that the event is claimed to be at 7BC, not 0, and I'm not sure who defines "7BC" is the birth of Jesus rather than 1AD, which is by definition the birth of Jesus according to Christianity.

 

 

Finally, I don't see the point of any of this. Even if it is true that there was a start that shone brighter - that was not and will not be the first time that ancient folk see amazing phenomenon and attach a religious/unique meaning to it. It's not only in Christianity, either, and it's not confined to that period of time.

There is such a “star” that shines brightly but it is not found in the sky. The Star (halo) of yellow light is found between your ears. It is called the Eye of Horus, Eye of the World, Eye of Providence, and is the Monstrance of the Catholic Church, among other things and is formed by the six pointed Star which is made by the triangular stone not only because of its triplicity, aka the Trinity (Mercury, Silver and Gold) but it is also called that because a triangle is likely to appear first and has to be repeated seven times before the birth of Christ (B.C.) in susceptible individuals

[John L]

Thank you Moderation Section: you have managed to use your heavy hand by forcing the 'so called' separation of religion and science, with the stroke of a movement. By attempting to totally separate religion from science, done 'our way', you have taken a thread and managed to create derision amongst the participants.

 

Like it or no, there is a connection between religion and science, even though there are many fundies, or atheists, who will try to make it all one sided. But the simple truth is that there really is a logical, and fair, accommodation between all. Now you have forced the issue, based upon your own prejudices.

 

Instead of gently nudging the members into keeping the science first and foremost, by using reason first, threats second, and action LAST, you are showing everyone else that you are just as dogmatic as the very ones you are attempting to control.

 

This is my last post on this ruined thread. Congratulations!

 

 

PS: I am saving this post, just in case you decide to use your Statist approach to dissent. I'll then start a complaint thread about my thoughts.

[swansont]

Instead of gently nudging the members into keeping the science first and foremost, by using reason first, threats second, and action LAST, you are showing everyone else that you are just as dogmatic as the very ones you are attempting to control.

 

This is my last post on this ruined thread. Congratulations!

 

 

PS: I am saving this post, just in case you decide to use your Statist approach to dissent. I'll then start a complaint thread about my thoughts.

 

You should totally ask for your money back.

[mississippichem]

Statist!? I wasn't aware that SFN was an independent nation now. I assume Cap'n is El Presidente.

[mooeypoo]

Statist!? I wasn't aware that SFN was an independent nation now. I assume Cap'n is El Presidente.

 

I'm the chief of police. I have the leather uniform and sparkly whip to prove it.

[Appolinaria]

Can I be the military leader? We can try to outdo this bad-assery.

Edited November 25, 2011 by Appolinaria

[Phi for All]

Instead of gently nudging the members into keeping the science first and foremost, by using reason first, threats second, and action LAST, you are showing everyone else that you are just as dogmatic as the very ones you are attempting to control.

First, the "reason" is in the rules we all agreed to when we joined. Second, when the thread strays into another subject section, there is no "threat", we have only two choices: delete or move, both are "actions", based on "reason". We deleted only the off-topic complaints about the move to Religion. I moved it back into a science section, the best compromise available to me. Aren't you being a little dogmatic yourself, Mr Convinced-He's-Right?

 

This is my last post on this ruined thread. Congratulations!

At least you didn't run off with our ball.

 

PS: I am saving this post, just in case you decide to use your Statist approach to dissent. I'll then start a complaint thread about my thoughts.

I'm saving your post, in case you decide maybe you were being hypercritical. If not, I look forward to your complaint thread. We save those, too.

[mooeypoo]

I would also like to point out that since we are "scienceforums", all of our sub-forums are under the conditions of scientific debate and the requirements of 'evidence first', 'falsifiability', 'logical and rational explanations', and all the other 'stuff' that goes on to a scientific debate.

 

Even the religion forum. That's how we're different than many other forum networks.

 

 

If people bother to go to the religion forum they will clearly see that only threads that have some form of rational scientific arguments about religion stick around. Any arguments that are 'religious' in nature tend to go to dogmatic and preaching, and are closed.

 

Moving a thread to religion doesn't mean we discard it, or that we see it as less scientific. The requirement to remain scientific still exists in the religion forum -- it just means that the subject of the thread is religious. Any sort of religion; Christianity is not the only religion on Earth.

 

I think the problem is when religious-minded people come to a science forum and expect to convince us their dogmatic and evidence-lacking unorganized preachy statements are "science". They're not.

 

 

This thread was quite different, though.

 

As John Cuthber put it:

Let's be clear about this. A statement like

"Meet the modern day dipole, it was my discovery, derived from my inner perception, and philosophy."

has nothing to do with science.

 

This thread wouldn't fly in the Religion forum either. The thread, as it was going, was probably going to end up closed.This isn't about "encouraging" against science. It's about following up on subjects, all of them are required to be discussed scientifically, in a thread that clearly and absolutely without any doubt was not bringing up any scientific claims. The only reason it's currently in Speculation, is because the FIRST POST is semi scientific. That's it. If we were to judge this thread by the final posts, it would end up in "Religion", and close.

 

Before criticizing our actions, I suggest you go over our rules and take a look at the other threads in all of our sub-forums.

 

~mooey