The Sun Stood Still

[thelaqachisnext]

Judges 5:20 "They fought from heaven; the stars in their courses fought against Sisera."

http://sunnyokanagan.com/joshua/condensed.html

Just a bit of the link, here;

Joshua 10

12 "Then spake Joshua to the LORD in the day when the LORD delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, sun stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, moon upon Ajalon.
13 And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.
14 And there was no day like that before it or after it, that the LORD hearkened unto the voice of a man: for the LORD fought for Israel."

NASA states on their web site in order for the sun to stand still, according to the laws of physics, either the earth stopped rotating or "the sun started to move about in the solar system in a very specific way" so as to appear to stand still from our spinning earth. And that there is no evidence of either occurring. I theorize the sun moved on Joshua's long day. - This is not the missing day story - You will read here of plenty of evidence of this occurring. If the earth stopped or reversed its rotation, the problems are immense. If the sun moved not 360° but 180° the seasons would change. Earth would flow into a reverse orbit of the sun and must shift on its axis to keep in the same season, unless on the vernal or autumn equinox. If the sun moved 180° east February 25 1238 BC to stand still at noon in the sky for Joshua for 12 hours earth would flow into a reverse orbit and need to shift, turn 70° clockwise on the vertical, to keep in the same season. This shift would be less than stopping the earth's rotation and starting it again. Orbital Variations and Insolation Database (search and read up on it under "orbital variations" or "insolation database") show the seasons and the sun's intensity did not change. This model leaves no evidence just as NASA claims. Earth's forward momentum would carry earth into a reverse orbit of the sun. Earth must match its elliptical orbit in reverse perfectly. Earth almost certainly could not be left to itself. The reverse orbit must have been very skillfully managed to keep the sun's same seasonal intensity, as it would have had, throughout the year at the same time speeding up the yearly orbit 48 hours to keep the 365 days in a year because rotations are against orbit. The "severed leg of the bull" in ancient Egyptian and Sumerian history confirms this axis shift. If the sun moved earth must flow into a reverse orbit. This answers both concerns: Earth is rotating at 1,000 mph at the equator and rushing at 70,000 mph around the sun. You will read here of many reverse zodiacs/orbits.
Earth appears to have gone into a reverse orbit on Joshua's long day. The Hebrew states the sun stood still from the half of heaven for Joshua. Perhaps Israel saw stars from the other half of heaven that night. The Chinese from the time of Joshua state there was a long sunset: "King Wan was like the sun or the moon. He lightened with his shining the four quarters, -- the western regions." "a phoenix duck sang from mount K'e" - that is there was a sun miracle when the sun was setting on mount K'e. And that the five planets had a conjunction in Libra/Scorpius in February when the sun would be in Aquarius/Pisces - Scorpius would only appear in the east just before daybreak! Scorpius must appear in the west at sunset to fit the picture. If this was a sun miracle the Chinese were describing they were not describing particularly a conjunction but a long sunset. That all the planets appeared in the western quadrant at sunset and 12 hours later they appeared about Fang when the stars finally came out. The center of the 70° conjunction was Fang or Libra. "King Wan dreamt he was clothed in the sun and moon..on the sixth day of the first month" - A long sunset and the moon stayed directly overhead. Spring began on the new moon. The sixth day of spring the moon is 90° east of the sun. Thus the moon on the eastern horizon above Ajalon when the sun was in the noon position. The only way that all this is possible is if the sun moved 180° from Pisces to Virgo and the planets and moon moved 180° from Taurus to Scorpius and earth's forward momentum carried it into a reverse orbit. Then the moon and planets would appear in Scorpius at the end of this long sunset. (Then the sun would be in Virgo moving into Leo next on the vernal equinox.) After Joshua's long day Joshua conquered Jabin and Hazor in Joshua 11. Jabin appears to be still at Hazor in Judges 4 & 5. Judges 5:31 could be the sun moving back 183 days after Joshua's long day. The sun must move back 183 days or a year or years later. The soonest is 185 days later Tuesday night August 31 1238 BC and could be the day 56/57 (the night) recorded by the Chinese as a lunar eclipse. Perhaps the writer of Judges perceived the terrific speed the sun must have travelled that day:
Judges 5:20 "They fought from heaven; the stars in their courses fought against Sisera."
5:31 "So let all thine enemies perish, O LORD: but let them that love him be as the sun when he goeth forth in his might."
Psalm 19:4 "Their line is gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. In them hath he set a tabernacle for the sun,
5 Which is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, and rejoiceth as a strong man to run a race."
Perhaps Debra and Barak could sing about the stars fighting against Sisera in Judges 5:20 and the sun in Judges 5:31 because the sun and moon moved 180° west for a sudden sunrise, surprise attack and complete victory. That night they would see the stars from the other half of heaven and realize the sun and moon had moved 180° past the stars. On Joshua's long day the inner planets must stop and reverse in slow and the outer planets stop and reverse very fast (Saturn must go some 1,200,000 mph) to be in the same O'clock position in the night sky as they would have been in each season in a normal orbit. Then on Debra and Barak's short night the planets must move 180° back to where they would have been on that date. Thus the stars in their courses fought against Sisera. Also, earth would then flow out of the reverse orbit into its regular counter clockwise orbit of the sun and the stars would disappear in the west again through the year as they do now. August 31/September 1 1238 BC is exactly a half year after Joshua's long day. Thus we need not look any further for the 180° counter movement of the sun when earth flowed out of the reverse orbit. A large pendulum set in motion will appear to turn 360° in 24 hours while earth rotated. A pendulum on Joshua's long day would do the same, always moving back and forth in the same direction while the sun moved 180° around the earth and earth rotated under it. See the book of Jasher. Therefore Joshua's Long Day is solved. This is not a missing 24 hours but a missing 12 hours.
John 11:9 "Jesus answered, Are there not twelve hours in the day?"
This is not a reference point of 40 minutes but a reference point of 180°.

..

There are links on the site to records from all over the world that show the phenomenon of the heavenly bodies' strange behavior at that time.

 

[Daniel50]

1. The Historical Battle
The children won the battle of Jericho and the Ai. A league of Nations get together to oppose Israel. There are six kings against Joshua. Some sent spies and Jericho made a pact with the Gideonites. The five remaining kings set out to take revenge on the Gideonites. Joshua defends the Gideonites as he has promised. Joshua and the Gideonites are defeating the five kings when the sun starts to set. Joshua needs more time to finish the victory. Joshua asks for the sun and moon to stand still. The day was extended.

2. The Philosophical Battle

This battle is fought by scholars. Some read this bible passage and say it is folklore or myth.

Astronomical evidence - It can be proved from astronomical evidence. The sun was set at high noon, right over the city of Gibeon. The moon was in the valley of Ajalon. You can count back using astronomical records.
Theological evidence - God is powerful. It was God who created the universe. If God wants to extend the day, He can do it.
Historical evidence - There is legends throughout the world of a long day. E.g. Chinese, Peru, etc.

3. The Heavenly Battle

The Bible was written for our admonition. The saints are battling against spiritual wickedness. You can't have victory unless you have battles.

The truth concerning the reliability of the Word of God - If the Bible says the sun stood still, then it stood still. The Bible has burned and attacked throughout history - yet it still remains. Do you love this book?
The truth concerning the care of God for his children (vs 14). The Lord fought for Israel. You don't get God to be on your side. You need to get on God's side. God is not wanting to take sides - He wants to take over.
The truth concerning the power of God. See Joshua 10:24. The enemies of Israel were already defeated. The enemies of the Church are also already defeated. God can do abundantly more above what we can think.
The truth concerning the work of God. (vs 14). The enemies of Israel were already defeated. God is not going to stop the sun again. He is not going to prolong time again. The sun will descend each day. You had better get the work of God done each day. The sun is setting on you. We can't work when it is dark. See John 9:4. If you are going to do something for God, now is the time to do it.

 

[bob b]

if a force is directed though the center of mass of the spinning earth, would that cause a precession of the earth’s axis?

Your IF is probably not satisfied in a non-idealized world: specifically the idea which I suggested.

The prime reason for my suggestion was the inclusion of two elements in the Joshua story, 1) the lengthening of the day, and 2) the destruction of the enemy army by large stones from from heaven. The close passage of a large meteor would explain 2), and possibly 1) as well.

As far as I know the close passage of a large meteor to another like-sized solar system body has never been observed or measured by scientists. Hence, any unusual result of such an event remains a possibility, despite simulations which may or may not include all relevent factors.

Of course one might always conclude that the event happened and was supernatural, but I prefer to believe that it had a natural cause, even though my suggestion might not be the correct explanation.

 

[ThePhy]

Bob originally said:

Any disturbance of a gyroscope, and that is what the constantly spinning Earth is, would cause a precession of the axis, a wobble if you will.

I responded:

I don’t agree with your claim. For example, if a force is directed though the center of mass of the spinning earth, would that cause a precession of the earth’s axis?

Bob now responds with:

Your IF is probably not satisfied in a non-idealized world: specifically the idea which I suggested.

I didn’t specify an idealized world. I referred to exactly the same thing you did, the earth. With the mutual understanding that the earth is not a perfect sphere, has small-scale mass discontinuities, surface irregularities, and so forth, I still say your claim is wrong. Your opening post said “ANY disturbance … would cause a precession …” Would a force directed through the center of the mass of the earth cause a precession of the earth’s axis?

This is actually a relatively simple problem in vector analysis. Now get cracking on it, Mr. space systems engineer.

The prime reason for my suggestion was the inclusion of two elements in the Joshua story, 1) the lengthening of the day, and 2) the destruction of the enemy army by large stones from from heaven. The close passage of a large meteor would explain 2), and possibly 1) as well.

As far as I know the close passage of a large meteor to another like-sized solar system body has never been observed or measured by scientists. Hence, any unusual result of such an event remains a possibility, despite simulations which may or may not include all relevent factors.

Of course one might always conclude that the event happened and was supernatural, but I prefer to believe that it had a natural cause, even though my suggestion might not be the correct explanation.

The question I posed about the precession can be answered using physics without the need to consider anything about what other influences the earth may have been undergoing. But I will warn you that if you demand that the gravitational interaction with another nearby body be considered, I will ask that you show that it acts asymmetrically on the earth. You are going to find you will need to rewrite Newtonian physics.

 

[bob b]

Bob originally said: I responded: Bob now responds with: I didn’t specify an idealized world. I referred to exactly the same thing you did, the earth. With the mutual understanding that the earth is not a perfect sphere, has small-scale mass discontinuities, surface irregularities, and so forth, I still say your claim is wrong. Your opening post said “ANY disturbance … would cause a precession …” Would a force directed through the center of the mass of the earth cause a precession of the earth’s axis?

This is actually a relatively simple problem in vector analysis. Now get cracking on it, Mr. space systems engineer.The question I posed about the precession can be answered using physics without the need to consider anything about what other influences the earth may have been undergoing. But I will warn you that if you demand that the gravitational interaction with another nearby body be considered, I will ask that you show that it acts asymmetrically on the earth. You are going to find you will need to rewrite Newtonian physics.

"There are more things under heaven and Earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy".

 

[Johnny]

Eject, eject!

 

[Mustard Seed]

Hoping you'll forgive an intrusion and question from one of the last people ThePhy ever wants to see enter the sciences as a profesion but I was wondering--

What would a selective distortion of space time be able to pull of with regard to the sun standing still? In theoretical circles what would seem to be needed for the whole sun standing still scenario if it was simply caused by a distortion of space/time?

They say that the only stupid question is the one not asked. Thought I'd take them up on that. Though I don't know how true even that statement is.

 

[Agape4Robin]

"There are more things under heaven and Earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy".

:BRAVO:

 

[ThePhy]

Hoping you'll forgive an intrusion and question from one of the last people ThePhy ever wants to see enter the sciences as a profesion but I was wondering--

What would a selective distortion of space time be able to pull of with regard to the sun standing still? In theoretical circles what would seem to be needed for the whole sun standing still scenario if it was simply caused by a distortion of space/time?

They say that the only stupid question is the one not asked. Thought I'd take them up on that. Though I don't know how true even that statement is.

I’m not sure that discussing science with someone who sincerely believes that the sun actually has high-rise condos and bungalows on it is going to be very productive.

 

[Mustard Seed]

I’m not sure that discussing science with someone who sincerely believes that the sun actually has high-rise condos and bungalows on it is going to be very productive.

I've said nothing about there being high-rise condos or bungalows. I simply believes that there's either sentient life in or on the sun or that the sun itself is a form of sentient life of some degree.

Would you be able to shed any light on the aspect of possible time and space distortions as being viable explanations for an occurance given in the Bible? Or did you just think it would be fun to mock my belief in the possibility of life on, in or of a star?

 

[ThePhy]

I've said nothing about there being high-rise condos or bungalows. I simply believes that there's either sentient life in or on the sun or that the sun itself is a form of sentient life of some degree.

Oh so you don’t know if the sun-folks really have houses, eh? Surely they would need air conditioning, just think of those summers.

My point still stands.

 

[fool]

So, to sumerize this thread;
Bob makes claims about a meteor making the Earth wobble for Josh's big battle.
The Phy takes him to task.
Bob ignores it for a year.
Starts spouting the same stuff elsewhere.
This thread gets bumped.
Fool says it's nonsense, and tells Bob why.
All Bob can say is that he dosen't spill coffee in His car.
The Phy attacks again.
And all Bobs got left is some Shakespere.

"There are more things under heaven and Earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy".

S'at sum it up?

 

[bob b]

So, to sumerize this thread;
Bob makes claims about a meteor making the Earth wobble for Josh's big battle.
The Phy takes him to task.
Bob ignores it for a year.
Starts spouting the same stuff elsewhere.
This thread gets bumped.
Fool says it's nonsense, and tells Bob why.
All Bob can say is that he dosen't spill coffee in His car.
The Phy attacks again.
And all Bobs got left is some Shakespere.
S'at sum it up?

I can see why one might conclude that, except what the Bard said could well apply here.

I did not and do not wish to engage in a detailed discussion of why the assumptions that ThePhy is making in concluding what he did may nevertheless be wrong.

The reason should be obvious: I do not have a detailed model of an alternative idea that I could defend in detail. To restate it in other words: I do not have a scientific model. What I do have is a set of two events in the Joshua story which seem to be logically connected and which would seem to be quite a coincidence to have appeared in the same story by accident. In addition I have some vague intuitive ideas of how they might have been connected in such a way as was generally described in the account related in scripture. Because the ideas are vague I do not choose to discuss them in detail at this time. I will patiently await further developments, and if such developments occur you can be sure I will call them to your attention.

 

[ThePhy]

From bob b:

I can see why one might conclude that, except what the Bard said could well apply here.

Perhaps Bob relying on the Bard is wise, since it is becoming apparent that Shakespeare knew more physics after a career as a 17th Century playwright than Bob does after an career as a 20th Century aerospace engineer.

I did not and do not wish to engage in a detailed discussion of why the assumptions that ThePhy is making in concluding what he did may nevertheless be wrong.

The reason should be obvious: I do not have a detailed model of an alternative idea that I could defend in detail. To restate it in other words: I do not have a scientific model.

There is a problem with your answer. The request that I have now made twice to you is not about your model, it is about a fundamental claim you made as to how the earth and gyroscopes work. I don’t care if we are talking about your model, or your mother’s model, or Methuselah’s model. My question involves something you said about fundamental physics. Quit being such a sniveling coward and hiding behind this “No model No model” whining. If you are right about the physics, then show it. If you are wrong, then show that you are man enough to admit it.

 

[Mustard Seed]

Oh so you don’t know if the sun-folks really have houses, eh? Surely they would need air conditioning, just think of those summers.

If they're not carbon based life, or even made of matter that's detectable (remember that around 90 percent of the matter in the universe isn't directly detectable by any human contraption.

My point still stands.

It can't, it never did.

 

[Jukia]

I've said nothing about there being high-rise condos or bungalows. I simply believes that there's either sentient life in or on the sun or that the sun itself is a form of sentient life of some degree.

Would you be able to shed any light on the aspect of possible time and space distortions as being viable explanations for an occurance given in the Bible? Or did you just think it would be fun to mock my belief in the possibility of life on, in or of a star?

And I used to think that Walt Brown's hydroplate theory was the silliest.

 

[ThePhy]

Mustard, it doesn’t matter if it is carbon-based life or silicon or whatever. I already mentioned the problem that organizations of atoms at all levels and of all types are destroyed in the sun. That apparently went over your head, which demonstrates why I am unwilling to waste time on far-out science fiction. In a Q and A session Richard Feynman was asked a sincere question about the possibility for anti-gravity devices. He basically instantly cut the idea off at the knees because he said it simply violated physics, and then went on to the next question. Ditto for physical life on the sun.

You really should take your issue to someone who can not only answer it, but use that answer to garner another in a long and impressive list (two? One? zero?) of international awards for advancing science – FARMS. They are a group of Mormon academics dedicated to trying to make clap-trap like this sound palatable.

But please, this thread is not about the man in the sun, OK?

 

[fool]

For the record I think there could be life in places like the Sun.
I seen a Star Trek episode where some energy beings made a nest in the warp core.
I myself am made mostly from water, so I think it'd be silly for me to say some other being couldn't be made outa something else.

 

[fool]

For the record I think there could be life in places like the Sun.
I seen a Star Trek episode where some energy beings made a nest in the warp core.
I myself am made mostly from water, so I think it'd be silly for me to say some other being couldn't be made outa something else.

Bob b Gave me a neg rep for this!
What a hypocrite!
What's Yaweh made out of Bob?

 

[Mustard Seed]

Mustard, it doesn’t matter if it is carbon-based life or silicon or whatever. I already mentioned the problem that organizations of atoms at all levels and of all types are destroyed in the sun. That apparently went over your head, which demonstrates why I am unwilling to waste time on far-out science fiction. In a Q and A session Richard Feynman was asked a sincere question about the possibility for anti-gravity devices. He basically instantly cut the idea off at the knees because he said it simply violated physics, and then went on to the next question. Ditto for physical life on the sun.

How is it you're so narrow in thinking that a form of organization sufficient for some form of sentient life must have the atomic constituencies of life that's presently discernable. Jukia chimed in on her estimation and how is her's, or yours, any different from the absurdity with which the idea of extra dimensions was treated by the scientific community not many years in the past--

AMANDA PEET (University of Toronto): We've always thought . . . that there's only three dimensions of space and one of time. And people who've said that there were extra dimensions of space have been labeled as, you know, crackpots. Well, string theory really predicts it.

You really should take your issue to someone who can not only answer it, but use that answer to add garner another in a long and impressive list (two? One? zero?) of international awards for advancing science – FARMS. They are a group of Mormon academics dedicated to trying to make clap-trap like this sound palatable.

FARMS deals with ancient research and things such as archeology, their methods and scholarship is praised by many in the field of archeology, even those who don't suscribe to the underlying faith of those who support the foundation financialy.

But please, this thread is not about the man in the sun, OK?

My question, initialy, had very much to do with the sun, you were the one that brought up my belief in connection to sentient life in, on, or as part of, the sun.

If you will not comment for or against, or simply concerning, the possibility of space-time anomalies as being possible explanations for the sun seeming to hold still in the sky, then I wish to still keep the issue, which is directly related to the thread topic, on the table for a scientist that is more ready to not allow bias to blind them to corespondance with someone simply because a belief they hold (one which you personaly claim is disconected from the main thrust of the thread's purpose) is opposed to your regimented 'scientific' 'sensibilities'. 'Sensibilities' which I find to be as shifty as anyone's. It reminds me of the fact that, for quite some time, you refused to answer many of my questions relevant to another topic, yet when asked the same question by someone else you freely answered the question without compormizing the initial reasons you gave for not responding. Funny how you state excuses for withholding information when you want to, yet later you either manage to disclose the information without compromizing your initial points of concern OR you simply engage in OTHER actions that obviously run counter to your initialy stated intentions. Currently you object to responding to me simply because of other views I hold, previously you objected to responding because you thought I was some crazed person that, if I discovered your identity, that I'd stalk you. Yet quite unintentionaly I managed upon your name and connecting information, and have had such for a long period of time, yet I've not been the evil stalker you painted me as likely being.

You can deride my unrelated views all you want, but my petition for a response relevant to the thread topic still remains.

But please don't try and make it look like I'm trying to hijack a thread when YOU initiate the deviation.

Does anyone else want to comment on potential space-time issues being possible explanations for, or against, the alleged solar occurance on which this thread revolves?