Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 6
Still Waters

Newton Believed a Comet Caused Noah's Flood

426 posts in this topic

“Late in the autumn of 1680 the good people of Manhattan were overcome with terror at a sight in the heavens such as has seldom greeted human eyes,” history tells us.

That terrible sight was a comet so bright that it could be seen in daytime. But, like Comet 45P/Honda-Mrkos-Pajdušáková—which is currently relatively close to Earth and may put on its best show this New Year's Eve—the Great Comet of 1680 was not a portend of doom but a scientific blessing.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/01/comet-new-years-eve-newton-flood-bible-gravity-science/

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't Newton the one who discovered that light refraction caused light to curve? ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, 029b10 said:

Isn't Newton the one who discovered that light refraction caused light to curve? ;)

Using a prism, Newton showed that light is composed of a mix of all the colors, not because the light curves but because the different wavelengths are refracted by differing amounts as it enters and exists the prism.  Although he is generally given full credit for this, the phenomenon had been well know for a long time.  I think though he is the one who realized the implication.

I wouldn't doubt Newton "believed" in Adam and Eve.  People then generally did and those who voiced other opinions suffered from it.

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Wasn't Newton's contention that light was a particle and not a wave?  As I understand it, Newton used the prism to demonstrate that white light was a particle since it was considered that waves don't travel in a straight line.  Since refraction doesn't cause light to curve or bow but merely results in the band of light traveling in a straight line to travel along a different line of travel relative to the angle of refraction Newton used the double prism experiment to demonstrate that the visible colors were the reflection of white light at different angles which could be turned back into white light by passing it through a second prism.

zsfd.png

 Newton used the failure of the wave theory to prove that light is made of particles. Newton concluded that light is composed of colored particles that combine to appear white.

 Source  http://www.thestargarden.co.uk/Newtons-theory-of-light.html

 

3 hours ago, Frank Merton said:

 I think though he is the one who realized the implication.

What implication?  Not sure how the refraction of visible white light has anything to do with the curvature of the earth's atmosphere, since the bow in that cloud of lumineferous aether is a result of the bow in the earth's surface, which some would describe a spherical like. 
Edited by 029b10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe you should go into some detail as to how Newton showed light to be curved in a prism, especially when he put two together and got white.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I didn't say light could be curved in a prism.

[/quote] Isn't Newton the one who discovered that light refraction caused light to curve? ;) [/quote]

refraction doesn't cause light to curve

Edited by 029b10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is getting technical and I may misstate things.  Newton taught that light is "corpuscular," not a particle nor a wave but something without dimensions.  I misunderstood (I had you and a previous poster in mind and got them confused, I think) about whether the light bends or is refracted at the edge of the prism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well a global flood isn't possible, so he clearly was wrong.

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, 029b10 said:

I didn't say light could be curved in a prism.

[/quote] Isn't Newton the one who discovered that light refraction caused light to curve? ;) [/quote]

refraction doesn't cause light to curve

 

?  

 

Related image

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/4/2017 at 0:35 AM, Frank Merton said:

 Newton taught that light is "corpuscular," not a particle nor a wave but something without dimensions.

The term corpuscular is defined as a minute particle regarded as the basic constituent of matter or light.  And while I don't disagree yet isn't that minute particle considered to be a particle of light, called a photon.   

 So I see what you mean but  the source cited states that  "After joining the Royal Society of London in 1672, Newton stated that the 44th trail in a series of experiments he had previously conducted had proven that light is made of particles and not waves.  

 

^

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

There is no archaeological  record of Noah's flood, so what Newton believed in that aspect is irrelevant. 

Edited by The Butler
5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a wavicle . :) 

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Light, and everything else for that matter, is really just waves (systematic disturbances) in background fields (most of our experience being such disturbances of the electromagnetic fields).  Thinking of these things as particles is a residue we need to get rid of from the old materialist thinking.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, 029b10 said:

The term corpuscular is defined as a minute particle regarded as the basic constituent of matter or light.  And while I don't disagree yet isn't that minute particle considered to be a particle of light, called a photon.   

 So I see what you mean but  the source cited states that  "After joining the Royal Society of London in 1672, Newton stated that the 44th trail in a series of experiments he had previously conducted had proven that light is made of particles and not waves.  

 

^

 

You seem determined to pick some sort of argument over an obscure almost ancient frame of thinking, so as to prove yourself in some way or another; I do not intend to cooperate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, The Butler said:

There is no archaeological  record of Noah's flood, so what Newton believed in that aspect is irrelevant. 

I have my own idea about the flood. I think it was a produce of ice age melting in a small valley. Maybe a family got smart and built a raft before the dam broke. Then the story get's pumped up and altered to the ugly thing it is now. Just my idea now. One I don't put much stock into.

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

I have my own idea about the flood. I think it was a produce of ice age melting in a small valley. Maybe a family got smart and built a raft before the dam broke. Then the story get's pumped up and altered to the ugly thing it is now. Just my idea now. One I don't put much stock into.

I think local flooding is a popular theory, and highly likely. 

My pet theory is that fossils of seashells and starfish and things found on mountains, miles from the sea, gave people ideas.  

9 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, The Butler said:

I think local flooding is a popular theory, and highly likely. 

My pet theory is that fossils of seashells and starfish and things found on mountains, miles from the sea, gave people ideas.  

I agree.   After all, how else could they have got there? 

Though in terms of "Noah's Flood"  I stand by my tropical cyclone theory.   Hence why the original Sumerian myth involved terrific winds as well as rain and rising waters (tidal surge?).   Imagine Hurricane Katrina hitting a pre-bronze age coastal society with only a handful of lucky survivors (perhaps because they were on a boat at the time)?

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, XenoFish said:

I have my own idea about the flood. I think it was a produce of ice age melting in a small valley. Maybe a family got smart and built a raft before the dam broke. Then the story get's pumped up and altered to the ugly thing it is now. Just my idea now. One I don't put much stock into.

the lower Tigres Euphrates basin I am guessing :  low lying, prone to flooding, low level mud brick houses .  And old myth picked up while jews in captivity there ' before the jewish scripture written.

Considering ice dams , the central ASian civilisation seems a great candidate for that . . Check out the terrain to the east and what fed their rivers .  Scripture from there ( as this is pre-history, so no other written  record ) indicates a 'big chill'   ( Younger dryas or similar ? )  followed by a thawing (ice dam scenario )  any downstream flash flooding, is on a plain , where  many settlements where. Following  this was a period of drying, that finished them off . 

 

Image result for archeology of central asia

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, The Butler said:

I think local flooding is a popular theory, and highly likely. 

My pet theory is that fossils of seashells and starfish and things found on mountains, miles from the sea, gave people ideas.  

Probably a few indications came together .

We have a feature here that has Indigenous significance .  It has the face of an indigenous warrior in the mountain.   The feature was actually formed on the sea floor millions of years ago, land rose, sea dropped, etc . 

The deeper level teaching about the warrior was, he used to be a whale and live in the ocean . How on earth could they know that !  

.....     he still got old barnacles on his back !   ;) 

 

a bit further south ;    : Dont go up that mountain ;   giant wombat get you !   "

How did they know we had giant wombats .....   racial memory ?   years later someone (white fellah ) found  fossilised giant wombat bones up there .  

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Perhaps the Black Sea deluge hypothesis is still a good candidate?

Or is that not popular with the kids these days? :P

Wait, forgot where I am and those special kinds of posters that might read this.....it was ALIENS, of course.

Edited by Thorvir
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmmm ... I might check for the latest on this. The whole area is low isnt it ? Whats the idea, an overflow from the Med ?    During the wetter time in Central Asia , the Oxus could have flowed into a series of interconnected lakes and into the Aral Sea and from there to  ......  ?  

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/4/2017 at 2:41 AM, Frank Merton said:

Using a prism, Newton showed that light is composed of a mix of all the colors, not because the light curves but because the different wavelengths are refracted by differing amounts as it enters and exists the prism.  Although he is generally given full credit for this, the phenomenon had been well know for a long time.  I think though he is the one who realized the implication.

Newton's experiment with the prism - the "crucial" experiment as he called it - was, as you suggest, not to demonstrate how white light is refracted by a prism to produce colors. Indeed, he called this the "celebrated phenomena of the colors", indicating refraction was already well known. His experiment was to show that once white light has been split into its constituent colors, no further modifications by refraction occur. That is to say, red light when passed through a prism remains red. And then, by superimposing all the colors onto one another, white light is again produced. Prior to Newton, scientists had believed glass adds color to light. Newton demonstrated that color is a property of the light itself.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Thorvir said:

Wait, forgot where I am and those special kinds of posters that might read this.....it was ALIENS, of course.

Of course it was! Whatever would make you think otherwise? 

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, brlesq1 said:

Of course it was! Whatever would make you think otherwise? 

I dunno, I guess I tend to use a bit more logic when it comes to thinking these things through.  My apologies for being educated and informed.

:D:D:D

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

18 hours ago, Thorvir said:

Perhaps the Black Sea deluge hypothesis is still a good candidate?

Or is that not popular with the kids these days? :P

Wait, forgot where I am and those special kinds of posters that might read this.....it was ALIENS, of course.

While the Black Sea Deluge theory has been proposed in recent times it really doesn't fit with the Mesopotamian cultures which had their own flood stories for several reasons:

1) At its dating circa 7400 BC there were no known cultures immediately around the Black Sea that show evidence of creating and dispersing such a flood legend over several thousand years and no Mesopotamian culture suggests that such a story originated from so far away.

http://www.whoi.edu/cms/files/Giosan_et_al-all_46963.pdf

2) Such a flood would have had no effect on the Tigris-Euphrates river valley where the earliest relevant flood legends come from.

3) As the Sumerians only show some evidence of having originated from the Samarra Culture to the northwest there is no evidenced connection between it and the Black Sea.

4) There is evidence of several large floods within the Tigris-Euphrates river valley that occurred in the late 4th - early 3rd millenium BC that are far more likely to have left an impression on the minds of the local inhabitants of said river valley.

5) The Black Sea Deluge as Biblical Flood would appear to be an attempt to rationalize the Biblical Flood into existance regardless of what it takes. Added to that, the Black Sea Flood is not evidenced as having been as devastating as originally thought nor was it anywhere near "world-wide" in scope.

cormac

Edited by cormac mac airt
Edited to add last sentence to point 5
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 6

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.