Talk:Firmament

message: I feel that the flat earthers are trying to hijack this page, because the common, accepted definition of firmament is that of actual land and not some crazy dome in the sky.➥   TheCyndicate |✉  : 15:32, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flatearthers Hijacking 

message: The statement that the order of the planets / planetary spheres is "preserved in the order of the days of the week" is wrong, at least according to Claudius Ptolemy. The weekday order is ancient, and matches the order in the "classical planet" article (which cites ).
My issue is that the planetary spheres’ order is different from the days of the week. The order of the moving celestial spheres is: Moon (lowest*, fastest), Mercury, Venus, Sun, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn (highest**, slowest). That ordering is straight-forwardly based on the apparent speed of the planets: the Moon is the fastest. Mercury and Venus are bound to the motion of the Sun, so all three have the same average speed, but Mercury and Venus run ahead (and fall behind) the Sun from time to time, and Mercury overtakes Venus, so the order of those three is: Mercury, Venus, Sun. The Sun takes one year to cross all the Zodiacal constellations, but Mars requires about 1⅞ years, Jupiter takes about 11⅞ years, and Saturn 29½ years, so the order of the final three is: Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn.***
All of these speeds are easily observed by eye, and were observed and recorded by Mesopotamian astrologers / astronomers. Ptolemy dates from 200 CE, and drew on sources from several hundred years earlier (most notably Hipparchos, who in turn, is believed to have relied on Mesopotamian sources for planetary data, at least). During their careful observation of planetary positions in the sky, and tabulation of the planetary speeds for forecasting, it was certainly known to Babylonian / Mesopotamian astrologers / astronomers.
But the spheres’ order does not match the weekday order described in the article: Sun, Moon, Mars, Mercury, Jupiter, Venus, Saturn.
It's perfectly reasonable that there would be a different astrological order of the spheres (based on speed of motion) from the religious order (based on brightness / impressiveness of the object and priority of the assigned god), but the celestial spheres (an astrological / astronomical ordering) and the days of the week (a priority / religious order) do not match.
So my first impulse is to just comment-out the offending sentence. Any suggestions for a middle-way? Is there some way to re-phrase the sentence to avoid the error?
208.54.5.213 (talk) 00:45, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Order of planets 

message: I think the present article is either in need of a move (e.g. to Firmament (Judeo-Christian)) or some expansion. The concept of a "firmament" or "vault of Heaven" is far more common than just the Biblical text. (Off the top of my head, Nüwa darning the sky and Atlas supporting the heavens cover two further major ancient civilizations.) This namespace needs to at least begin to address the concept broadly across all cultures. — LlywelynII 13:14, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:Bias]]

message: I'm just going to avoid copyright infringement, and say you can establish your own opinion. I might be late to the party, but I did check around and didn't see anything on this subject. I want you to look up Upper-atmospheric lightning from the elves to the lightning we see. 
Check out what it looks like from top to bottom, and then look up a plasma ball globe when someone touches it. Can you see correlation between the two? Am I wrong or late? I can't find anything on it. Firmament anyone? $That 1Random Guy$ (talk) 00:34, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Firmament, at least hear me out? 

message: Through the theories of cosmic inflation and multiple bubbles of worlds, the firmament could be considered to re-emerge as a upgraded concept? But where the size of the firmament is radically larger than in the Bible? I think it's a fascinating coincidence. The basic idea of ​​a constraint as opposed to infinite world is interesting regardless it is true? I think this article should somehow relate this article of Inflation_(cosmology), at least as a See also​-link.
--Zzalpha (talk) 00:38, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cosmic inflation and multiple bubbles  

message: I think it is quite right of Wikipedia to demand an official scientific basis in the articles and so also to its references.
But I think it is appropriate to note in the article of the firmament that some organizations in the United States without a link to Paul, still take the Bible literally and claim the existence of the firmament in the sense described in older scriptures. After all, it is part of the reality we live in that the firmament is still asserted by some. The section should also have links to those who stand for the position that has no official scientific basis, but is nevertheless a politically obvious position. I think it is a good solution to this type of contradiction that gives the reader an informative reading, the information about the existence of opposition to the official scientific view, that there are those who think otherwise.
The central basis of scientific methodology and truths is that it can be questioned and constantly tested regardless of whether the criticism has a scientific basis or not (has an acceptable scientific methodological basis for the testing process).
It is also important to note that the official Lutheran and Reformed churches such as the Church of Sweden  and the Evolution and the Catholic Church absolutely does not claim the existence of the firmament and it is doubtful whether any Greek Orthodox representative claims it.
Instead, they talk about God's responsibility to have created the world in the way that official science describes it. That science has progressed and we know more today than before when older writings were written, when the church had a different scientific basis then, before later discoveries and thus a different view. And thus the acceptance that the scientific basis is developed through scientific methodological work.
--Zzalpha (talk) 01:33, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The article has a "see also" link to "Flood geology", which has a subsection "Vapor/water canopy" Feline Hymnic (talk) 13:40, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  I think the opposition should be mensioned in a section 

message: The walls of the local bubble are a star forming region. https://phys.org/news/2022-01-light-year-wide-earth-source-nearby.html  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.112.55.242 (talk) 17:31, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Local Galactic Bubble 

message: The division of the waters between Enlil and Enki representing the division of the celestial sphere into northern and southern hemispheres would seem to be related. Anyone aware of sources connecting these specific elements with Genesis? Skyerise (talk) 19:39, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Connection with Sumerian division of the celestial sphere