Missler Genesis Session 5 Genesis 1:14-19 supplement

Genesis 1:14-19

14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; 

and let them be 

for signs, 

and 

for seasons, 

and to mark

וְהָי֤וּ (wə·hā·yū)

Conjunctive waw | Verb - Qal - Conjunctive perfect - third person common plural

Strong's Hebrew 1961: 1) to be, become, come to pass, exist, happen, fall out 1a) (Qal) 1a1) ----- 1a1a) to happen, fall out, occur, take place, come about, come to pass 1a1b) to come about, come to pass 1a2) to come into being, become 1a2a) to arise, appear, come 1a2b) to become 1a2b1) to become 1a2b2) to become like 1a2b3) to be instituted, be established 1a3) to be 1a3a) to exist, be in existence 1a3b) to abide, remain, continue (with word of place or time) 1a3c) to stand, lie, be in, be at, be situated (with word of locality) 1a3d) to accompany, be with 1b) (Niphal) 1b1) to occur, come to pass, be done, be brought about 1b2) to be done, be finished, be gone

לְאֹתֹת֙ (lə·’ō·ṯōṯ)

Preposition-l | Noun - common plural

Strong's Hebrew 226: 1) sign, signal 1a) a distinguishing mark 1b) banner 1c) remembrance 1d) miraculous sign 1e) omen 1f) warning 2) token, ensign, standard, miracle, proof

[the] seasons

וּלְמ֣וֹעֲדִ֔ים (ū·lə·mō·w·‘ă·ḏîm)

Conjunctive waw, Preposition-l | Noun - masculine plural

Strong's Hebrew 4150: 1) appointed place, appointed time, meeting 1a) appointed time 1a1) appointed time (general) 1a2) sacred season, set feast, appointed season 1b) appointed meeting 1c) appointed place 1d) appointed sign or signal 1e) tent of meeting

and for days, and years:

15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.

16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,

18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.

19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

 Or?

Problems, problems, problems 

all day long...

Nebular hypothesis

Current issues

"The physics of accretion disks encounters some problems.[22] The most important one is how the material, which is accreted by the protostar, loses its angular momentum."

"The formation of planetesimals is the biggest unsolved problem in the nebular disk model. How 1 cm sized particles coalesce into 1 km planetesimals is a mystery. This mechanism appears to be the key to the question as to why some stars have planets, while others have nothing around them, not even dust belts.[28]"

(Belief in things that cant be proven is a faith based belief system.)

"The formation timescale of giant planets is also an important problem. Old theories were unable to explain how their cores could form fast enough to accumulate significant amounts of gas from the quickly disappearing protoplanetary disk.[20][29] The mean lifetime of the disks, which is less than ten million (107) years, appeared to be shorter than the time necessary for the core formation.[17] Much progress has been done to solve this problem and current models of giant planet formation are now capable of forming Jupiter (or more massive planets) in about 4 million years or less, well within the average lifetime of gaseous disks.[30][31][32]"

(When you read or hear the term, "models"? Understand they are merely conjectures of what they think the conditions might have been in that timeframe. They honestly have no idea. Dont like the evidence you see? Change the model to make it work, it is 100% the opposite of how true science is supposed to work.)

"Another potential problem of giant planet formation is their orbital migration. Some calculations

 

(What % exactly? They never tell you. Why?)

show that interaction with the disk can cause rapid inward migration, which, if not stopped, results in the planet reaching the "central regions still as a sub-Jovian object."[33] More recent calculations indicate that disk evolution during migration can mitigate this problem.[34.

(Same issue as above.

Dont like what you observe?

Change the model to match it.)

"Giant planets

The formation of giant planets is an outstanding problem in the planetary sciences.[22]"

(The biggest problem here is the angular momentum, which is what Missler will be hammering away on when I get Session five finished here in a bit lol.

If all the planets came from the sun during its formation?

Then the sum of all the angular momentum of the sun and all the planets in the solar system should equal 100%. It doesn't, when totaled together it exceeds 100%, yet the nebular hypothesis still gets taught in colleges like its 100% truth. Why?

(Belief in things that cant be proven is a faith based belief system.)

Q: Why do the planets all orbit the Sun in the same plane?

Smithsonian Magazine 2020

WELL?

THEY DONT!

"Because of the way the Sun formed, explains David DeVorkin, a senior curator in the space history division at the Air and Space Museum. About 4.5 billion years ago, a massive cloud of dust started contracting as gravity pulled its parts toward the center. This dust cloud rotated slowly at first but sped up as it contracted, in much the same way that a figure skater spins more quickly when she pulls her arms closer to her body. (This law of physics, which makes things spin faster as they contract, is called angular momentum.) The faster rotation flattened the cloud into a pancake, with the Sun at the center and planets forming within that plane. Planetary systems around other stars tend to form in a similar way."

(Couple of problems here as well.

If:

"Planetary systems around other stars tend to form in a similar way."

Then why have we only found one other solar system with two gas giant in its outer reaches? And, as stated previously, they never tell you what kind of star they are orbiting and to be hospitable to life (as far as we know) it has to be a star like ours. To big? To much radiation, to small? Same problem basically, (have to be to close to it to get the warmth from it = to much radiation as well) its why they never tell you what kinda star all these exoplanets are orbiting around. Its deliberate deceit.

Another problem is this, 

not every planet 

(including dwarf one listed below) 

in our solar system 

is in the same orbital plane. 

Sedna

3:10 mark.

Of the video.

Bottom left corner:

Sun and orbiting bodies

(Planets included)

The "orbital plane" is shown with the unfinished green line 

that makes a circle in the video.

Sednas orbit is not even close

to our orbital plane.

Seems nobody really like to point this out.

And apparently?

"David DeVorkin, a senior curator in the space history division at the Air and Space Museum."

Either didn't know about it in 2020 

(It was discovered in 2003) 

or just didnt tell you about it.

(Those who question the dogma of this faith based system 

are excommunicated BTW.)

Two days 

after I come home from working 

on the next Missler commentary on Genesis? 

(Session 5).

Which this is a companion piece to,

 this is in my IG feed:

I dont go looking for things.

They just find me.

Its to far away to have been created by the suns accretion disc.

If it was captured from another star?

Then it was done so through the 3.5 light years 

or whatever of the Ort Cloud.

The Planet nine hypothesis tries to explain this as well.

It's gravity affecting Sedna's orbit)

So how did that get created then?

You have the same set of problems for it as you do with Sedna.

You are not solving anything

you are just placing the same set of problem 

onto other entities.)

"Sedna has an exceptionally elongated orbit, and takes approximately 11,400 years to return to its closest approach to the Sun at a distant 76 AU. It has been considered a member of the scattered disc, a group of objects sent into highly elongated orbits by the gravitational influence of Neptune. However, this classification has been contested because its perihelion 

(the point in the orbit of a planet, asteroid, or comet at which it is closest to the sun.)

is too large for it to have been scattered by any of the known planets, leading some astronomers to informally refer to it as the first known member of the inner Oort cloud. It is also the prototype of a new orbital class of object, the sednoids, which also include 2012 VP113 and Leleākūhonua.

(The long story short is this:

THIS SHIT DONT ADD UP.

AND THEY DONT 

TELL YOU ABOUT IT.

"Same as it ever was

Same as it

ever was..."

The talking heads song goes.

THEY IGNORE ALL THE ISSUES 

THEY FIND WITH THINGS

AND JUST PROCEED ON

 LIKE ITS SET IN STONE.

The fact that the adherents to scientism

do not tell you all the problems associated

with their faith based belief system?

Tells you everything you need to know.

So thats:

Angular Momentum

and

not every planet 

in our solar system

are on the same 

orbital plane.

Those are two pretty big issues for the Nebular hypothesis as well as the others one that were pointed out above.

Lets move on to something else:

How the moon got its tilt—and Earth got its gold

Blame the gravitational tugs of many close calls in a crowded young solar system

25 Nov 2015

(Remember that date.)

"Miniplanets zooming through our early solar system passed close to our moon and tugged it into the strange, tilted orbit it has today, according to a new study. The findings solve a longstanding mystery and may also explain why Earth's crust is unexpectedly rich in gold and platinum: When some of these small planets slammed into Earth, they delivered a payload of precious metals."

"Scientists have long debated the origin of the moon. The prevailing idea, first proposed decades ago, is that a Mars-sized planet collided with Earth, flinging material into space that then coalesced into our only natural satellite."

(Thats what I was taught years ago.)

"According to current models of that collision, the ring of debris that eventually became the moon should have ended up in a plane tilted no more than 1° from the ecliptic, the plane in which Earth orbits the sun, says Kaveh Pahlevan, a planetary scientist at Université Côte d'Azur in Nice, France. But in fact, the moon's orbital inclination today is 5°. And the tilt would have been more pronounced, 10° or so, immediately after the moon formed 4.5 billion years ago, before Earth started to smooth the moon's orbit out a bit. This significant discrepancy between prediction and reality has been dubbed 

"the lunar inclination problem."

(Were working toward it.

They aint solved shit basically.)

"In a substantial fraction of the team's simulations, 

(Models, what % was that again?)

"the moon's orbital tilt ended up being 10° or more, the amount that planetary scientists estimate the nascent moon would have had based on today's orbital tilt. What's more, says Pahlevan, some of the mini-planets crashed into Earth at some point in those simulations—impacts that would have delivered iridium, gold and platinum, among other elements. The proportions of those metals are unusually high in Earth's crust, which many scientists have tried to explain with models of an impact-delivered "late veneer" that came after Earth's formation. According to some models of planetary formation, 

(What % again?)

the metals would have sunk to Earth's core when much of the planet's iron did, which means that new supplies had to come later in order for them to be found in the crust in such relatively high abundances."

(They always just say:

"Some" models.

They never give you a %.)

"Based on the known average cosmic abundance of various elements, that's plenty enough material to explain the anomalous concentrations of the metals now present in Earth's crust, they say."

That was

25 Nov 2015.

Now lets fast forward to 

 May 8, 2024

Our best idea for the “origin of gold” doesn’t add up

"In 2017, we detected gold being forged 

in a neutron star-neutron star merger. 

Now, in 2024, the amounts created 

simply don’t add up."

"In 2017, astrophysicists detected a kilonova from two merging neutron stars: in gamma-rays, in gravitational waves, and then its afterglow all across the electromagnetic spectrum. Although large amounts of gold were produced, we simply haven’t observed enough kilonovae to explain how much gold (and other very heavy elements) our Universe currently possesses. The best candidate for making up the difference were the classes of energetic, core-collapse supernovae. Now that they’ve been ruled out, the mystery has deepened in an unexpected way."

"More than 90 species of atoms — from hydrogen up through plutonium — have been detected in various environments, but astrophysically, very few events are capable of creating the heaviest elements of all. Where did these heavy elements, including silver, iodine, tungsten, platinum, gold, mercury, uranium, and more, ultimately come from? For all of the 20th century and much of the 2000s, we had only theoretical ideas, not the observational confirmation we desired."

"That situation appeared to change in dramatic fashion on August 17, 2017, when we detected the first signals from a pair of merging neutron stars: a cataclysmic, black hole-creating event known as a kilonova. This one neutron star-neutron star merger, occurring in a galaxy just 130 million light-years away and just the 8th gravitational wave event ever observed, seemed to provide the answer. A wide variety of heavy elements were created in this merger and detected in its afterglow, including so much gold that, if we were to place it on a scale, would weigh about twenty times as much as Earth’s Moon."

"But now, seven years later, it no longer looks like the amount of gold present in the Universe can be explained by neutron star mergers alone. Here’s why the best idea for the origin of gold simply doesn’t add up."

"When we look out at the Universe with our telescopes, we don’t need to survey the entire sky; we survey a portion of the sky, and extrapolate what we see in that region to draw inferences about the overall population of objects elsewhere, including where we haven’t looked. Similarly, when we look at a reasonably large region of space for a sufficient duration of time — for an example, something like 8 hours and 46 minutes — we can anticipate what we ought to expect to occur over much longer timescales, like years, decades, centuries, or millennia, by simply extrapolating the observed event rate over the time we did collect our data."

(Most people dont know that.)

"But there’s a flaw to this method. Sometimes, you get lucky: you see a rare event or object because you happened to be looking in the right place at the right time, and you wind up vastly overestimating how frequently such events occur. Sometimes, you get unlucky: you miss relatively common events or objects, because you happened to be looking at a certain place and time where no such events or objects were found. Only with better, more comprehensive data can we account for these potential biases."

"When the event of August 17, 2017 was announced to the world, it was accompanied by a now-famous video where the Executive Director of LIGO, Dr. David Reitze, pulled out his great-grandfather’s gold watch — an artifact that’s now more than a century old itself — and declared that “The gold in this watch was very likely produced in the collision of two neutron stars approximately billions of years ago.” Many other similarly heavy elements, including platinum and uranium, were also produced, creating a total of about 16,000 Earth masses worth of heavy elements: about 5% of the mass of the Sun, from this one event alone."

"Based on:

the length of time that gravitational wave detectors like LIGO and Virgo had been operating,

the amount of sky coverage those detectors were capable of seeing signals from,

the sensitivity of those detectors, including how far away from Earth such events could be observed,

the observed event rates for black hole-black hole mergers, neutron star-neutron star mergers, and black hole-neutron star mergers at that moment,

and the total amounts of heavy elements produced in this kilonova event,

it seemed like the mystery was solved. The Universe’s gold, as well as practically all other heavy elements above zirconium (which is just element #40 on the periodic table), were primarily produced in neutron star-neutron star mergers."

"But then a funny thing happened over the next seven years, bringing us up to the present day: only one other neutron star-neutron star merger has ever been detected, and unlike the first event, it did not produce a kilonova or create any heavy elements. Despite several years of additional observing time, significant upgrades to the existing detectors that increase their sensitivity range, and tremendous numbers of black hole-black hole mergers and many black hole-neutron star mergers subsequently observed — bringing the total number of gravitational wave events up to over 100 — that one event from August 17, 2017 remains the only directly observed neutron star-neutron star merger to produce heavy elements."

(They extrapolated from an outlier

not from the norm basically.)

"This has taught us something remarkable and important: our initial estimate, that around 100% of the heaviest elements in the Universe was produced from neutron star-neutron star mergers, is no longer consistent with the data we’ve collected. Something else, beyond what we’ve seen so far, must be at play. 

(Well I wonder what?)

Three possible explanations immediately spring to mind, but all three have complicated problems.

(Im not getting into them if you wanna know about them you have the link, this is already way long enough for the point I am about to make :-).

"When we put this all together, it means that we still have a deficiency in our understanding of how the heaviest elements in the Universe — from distant galaxies to our own planet — came to be. Evolved stars can only make a small fraction of them; supernovae don’t appear to make any in substantial quantities; and kilonova events, which are triggered by the merger of two neutron stars, aren’t frequent enough to explain the elements we observe. There must be something else at play beyond what is known today."

(Maybe for them 

"there must be something else at play 

beyond what is known today."

To the members of "the community"?

We have known what that is for a while.

Long way to go to make a point :-).

But, in 2024 if you have:

"a deficiency in our understanding 

of how the heaviest elements in the Universe — 

from distant galaxies 

to our own planet 

— came to be"

How  can you know in 

25 Nov 2015

How the moon got its tilt—and Earth got its gold

Blame the gravitational tugs of many close calls in a crowded young solar system.

(We dont even know how the heavy elements came to be.

Let alone know why there is so much near our earths crust.

And if that part of your "study" "papaer ect is 100% absolutely wrong?

Then what is the likelihood, 

that the other problem you were trying to account 

for 

(Moons tilted orbit)

is correct?

"Miniplanets zooming through our early solar system passed close to our moon and tugged it into the strange, tilted orbit it has today, according to a new study. The findings solve a longstanding mystery and may also explain why Earth's crust is unexpectedly rich in gold and platinum: When some of these small planets slammed into Earth, they delivered a payload of precious metals."

(THEY DIDNT SOLVE ANYTHING!)

Still working to a bigger point, just bear with me, I know this is long, its why I am doing this here and will just going to link to it from the Missler piece thats coming up. There is just to much information to cover in the same post.

Moving on yet again.

Mystery of the moon’s tilted orbit

July 3, 2017

(That's why its at an angel it is when you look at it in the sky.)

"It’s why we don’t have 

lunar and solar eclipses every month."

(Thats very important.

Genesis 1:14-19

14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:

If we had them every month?

That would make them just everyday 

(every month lol) common things.

Lil hard to mark the sacred seasons 

with something that happens every month don't ya think?

The word used there doesn't mean summer, winter, spring and fall

This is why 

Sept 23rd 2017 

was such a big deal.

Take it from somebody 

who KNOWS, 

would be my advice.)

"The coming total solar eclipse of August 21, 2017 – seems certain to inspire a new generation of eclipse chasers. After that eclipse, when is the next one? Rather a long time, it turns out. Apart from four partial eclipses, mostly taking place at extreme southerly or northerly latitudes, we have to wait until July 2, 2019 "

(Makes it a lil uncommon dont ya think?

Close to two years later 

and in a completely different part of the world?)

"This raises a question: why? Since the moon orbits Earth once a month (to be precise, it passes between the Earth and sun every 29.53 days), why don’t we have 12 or 13 eclipses every year? I organize solar eclipse workshops for students, and this question has proven thought-provoking. The easy answer is that the moon’s orbit around Earth is tilted, by five degrees, to the plane of Earth’s orbit around the sun. As a result, from our viewpoint on Earth, the moon normally passes either above or below the sun each month at new moon.

"But there’s a deeper question: 

why is the moon’s orbit tilted? 

(To mark the sacred seasons duh...)

"Students are often surprised to learn that we don’t have a definite answer to this question. In fact, it’s a puzzle known as the lunar inclination problem."

(Have ya noticed they just keep inventing problems where there arent any? That might be a problem for them, but it aint a problem for us.)

"In late 2015, two planetary scientists – Kaveh Pahlevan and Alessandro Morbidelli – published an elegant solution. They had run computer simulations to look at the effect of collisionless encounters (near-misses) between the Earth-moon system and large objects, similar to what we today call asteroids, leftover from the formation of the inner planets. Their results – published in the peer-reviewed journal Nature – showed that these objects could have gravitationally jostled the moon into a tilted orbit."

(Nowhere near the threshold of proof and?

Only:

"They could have"

And

THEY got to determine 

the "computer simulations"

And?

As already shown?

If you cant account for

all the precious metals 

in the universe itself?

Then you really have no clue

as to why they would be

near or in the earths crust.

So one part of this is absolutely 100% wrong 

and the other is by no means proof of anything.)

"Some of these large objects would have eventually collided with Earth – and this provides an answer to another puzzle. When Earth formed, precious metals such as platinum and gold would have been carried down to our planet’s iron core. (Precious metals are siderophile, which means iron-loving.) Yet platinum and gold can be found at Earth’s surface in relatively high amounts, which suggests they were delivered to Earth later on."

This article was from

July 3, 2017

This is from 2024:

"a deficiency in our understanding 

of how the heaviest elements in the Universe — 

from distant galaxies 

to our own planet 

— came to be"

Okay?

So we dont even know

how the heaviest elements in the universe are formed

Let alone

Why they are in or near the earths crust.

Comprenede Kemosabe?

"Bottom line: The five-degree tilt of the moon’s orbit – which is the reason solar eclipses are rare events 

– has recently been explained 

(Notice now they don't say:

"Could have been")

by collisionless encounters (near-misses) between the Earth-moon system and large objects leftover from the formation of the inner solar system."

(No, no they haven't, not even close.

That was 2017.

And "scientist" still have no idea why.

And here is something important they left out.

It not just the fact 

that the moon is tilted 5 degrees 

that makes total eclipses possible,

It's this as well:

The ratio, of the moons size to the sun

and the distance between them

along with the angle of the moons orbit

is what makes total eclipses possible

and we this exactly:

NOWHERE ELSE EVER.

Whats the odds?

In a universe this big?

Hum?

So my question becomes

Why wasnt that brought up in the article as well?

Hum?

I told you at the beginning:

You can try and take the creator 

out of his creation all you want.

But It just doesnt work.

And yeah theres still

"more yet"

:-).

Recent Volcanoes on the Moon?

September 04, 2024

Volcanos forming on the moon?

Not even in the top 10 search results:

"New results from China’s Chang’e 5 lunar samples returned to Earth provide evidence for active volcanoes on the Moon as recently as 120 million years ago. Previously, scientists had thought that any activity with magma (molten rock) rising to the Moon’s surface ended billions of years ago. "

"Professor Qing-Zhu Yin, UC Davis Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences and Yuri Amelin, Korea Basic Science Institute, write that the new work will add to ongoing debates about thermal evolution and cooling of planets. "

(Well you betcha)

“There are many features on the Moon suspected to be very young based on remote sensing data,” Yin said.” 

(Younger than they think anyway.)

"Yin said. 

“At this point, we simply do not know how a small planet could still maintain active volcanism without cooling off completely."

(Well thats a lil bit of an issue, 

I reiterate

believing in something you know you can not prove?

Is a FAITH BASED belief system.)

Add:

“At this point, we simply do not know how a small planet could still maintain active volcanism without cooling off completely."

With

"The formation of planetesimals is the biggest unsolved problem in the nebular disk model. How 1 cm sized particles coalesce into 1 km planetesimals is a mystery."

And the facts that they do not know how the heavy elements even came into being

or why the moon has its five degree tilt

or why the ratios of the moon 

to suns size and distance 

make it possible for us and only us 

to have total solar eclipses.

Volcanoes once erupted on the far side of the moon

11/15/2024

We don't even know how it was formed:

"Yin said. “At this point, we simply do not know how a small planet could still maintain active volcanism without cooling off completely."

I don't know about you?

But I wouldn't believe people 

about a multiverse,

That cant even tell you 

how the moon 

or our solar system 

and the heavy elements

came into being.

Its laughable at this point.

ps

Angular momentum just gives it all away.

The creation of the solar system 

is simply not possible 

by that mechanism

because it contradicts

 the natural laws 

that govern our reality.

Matthew 19:2

"...but with God all things are possible.”

The sum of the angular momentium 

of the solar system

(Sun included)

can not exceed that 

from which it came.

(The sun in the Nebular Hypothesis)

But if you add them all up.

(The suns angular momentum 

and that of all he planets combined)

It does.

And this is just 

"the cheat sheet"

:-) 

so to speak lol

For:

Missler's Genesis Session 5.

And he was 100% absolutely correct over 20 years ago stating that people just do not understand the correct meaning in the text of Genesis, and then they confound things by falling for all the junk masquerading as science.

Course Correction Time.

Believe it.