Is the Stationary Earth the Heaviest Object in the Universe?

[JohnMartin]

No John. Sin is forgiven, but not 'permitted'. Paul deals with the issue clearly. Grace is not license to sin but rather freedom from its bondage.

But to be consumed by hatred and prejudice as you demonstrate here is to return again to that same bondage

Jim

And now Jim acts to project after the false allegation of ad hominems and the false arguments about Church authority. The dominos just keep falling against Jim's position.

JM

[JohnMartin]

You'd think the Pope might care about what his own observatory is doing in the church's name:
http://www.vaticanobservatory.va/con...-lemaitre.html

The Vatican observatory is not part of the magisterium, like the Pontifical Academy of Science is also not part of the magisterium and similarly the Pontifical Biblical Commission. They have no powers to teach in any authoritative way on matters of faith.

JM

[JohnMartin]

A bit off topic, but that is why I came to believe in the Trinity and other standard doctrines of the church. I had been "poisoned" as a teen by some Jehovah's witnesses, long before I actually became a Christian, so when I did become one, I was not sure about the Trinity or other doctrines of orthodox Christianity. But I decided that 2000 years of experts in the area probably know a heck of a lot more than a newbie like me, so I decided to trust their opinion on it, and began to study the issues myself based on orthodox teachings. It changed my views completely.

You should do the same with the theme of Christian cosmology and seek for the historical based doctrines, rather than the secular humanist, naturalist based empirical doctrines of modern cosmology. When you do, you will find there is a strong historical based consensus that God created the universe and the earth is stationary at the center of the rotating universe. That's what the history of Christian cosmology says, so why not believe it as a Christian? Empirical science cannot provide any proofs against it, so to deny the geocentric universe is really only a matter of personal preference.

We are called to be salt, so Geocentrism is salt for the modern secular humanist West that has fallen away from historical Christianity.

JM

[hansgeorg]

Twiddling over the technical details doesn't help, which is why I gave a simplistic definition. We were discussing pulsars, and they would be found in your 1 light-day distant 'sphere', and the idea such an object (actually, a very large number of them) can exist 1 light day away without distroying ther solar system and the earth is nothing more than ignorance or willful ignorance.

OK, then why didn't you say that? Ah, tired. Sorry, happens. Happens to the best, even to me!

Other option, I can take it that scientists are heavily wrong on what pulsars are.

Yes, I think they are found within 1 light day from us, but I also think they are correspondingly smaller. And therefore correspondingly less damaging to their immediate surroundings.

I understand that and wasn't implying you though as all evidence indicates the writers of Genesis 1 thought that the sky literally was a fixed dome above the Earth. But that is problematic in that your tendency towards the belief that culturally formed references to the sky must be taken as revelatory to the point of scientific knowledge actually would tend to force the former rather than the latter.

"though as all evidence indicates the writers of Genesis 1 thought that the sky literally was a fixed dome above the Earth"

All evidence, as in?

Writers of Genesis 1, as God and Moses?

"your tendency towards the belief that culturally formed references"

I have a belief that whatever God included as per author narrative in His word, reflects His references, whatever culturally formed ones might come between.

Which was my intended meaning - though I wasn't at all concerned about trying to capture whatever shades of legitimacy you think differentiating the two might give you.

No, you were not intent on capturing what there could be legitimate about my stance, thank you for admitting it. What were you saying about libel to John Martin, again?

Well, of course. The eye can't discern a parallax for any heavenly object. Though telescopic instruments can.

The point was that what I call sky differs from what I call one light day away, it includes also objects which I consider accurately (or fairly so) measured by simultaneous trigonometry as per distance.

I've no idea what you mean by 'shotoff'. But you would do better to address the actual points I made about neutron stars and your own illegitimacy as an interpreter of science and scripture as opposed to those who teachings you reject.

I had asked a faily open question to you on the issue. Will you engage it?

By shotoff, I mean another thread. The one I linked to.

"your own illegitimacy as an interpreter of science"

I don't pretend to "interpret science". I might pretend to reflect on scientific facts or methods, on scientific conclusions or misconclusions.

"your own illegitimacy as an interpreter of ... and scripture"

As being a Catholic, at least more legitimate than a Protestant.

I think I already answered the most relevant thing about neutron stars, in what I answered about pulsars. Smaller than imagined by astrophysics.

Was there anything more? In fact, you had. I am sorry I was absent during the weekend, am homeless and try to find shelter and needed much of it this weekend due to a cold.

No. The sort of matter from which a neutron star is made can't exist outside the extreme conditions of ~1.2 solar masses compressed into a space a perhaps 20 km. These stars are very hot, have immensely strong magnetic fields which produce huge amounts of radiation, and are the result of the supernovae of a star much larger than our sun. To put such events and remnants at 1 light day is ludicrous. And to claim this could somehow be some smaller form of neutron star is not to understand the physics of such an object. Apart from the immense gravity well of this object, a substance made of pure neutrons simply can't exist for any useful period of time, much less the 1000 years since the supernova that produced the crab nebula pulsar.

Let's break this down:

No. The sort of matter from which a neutron star is made can't exist outside the extreme conditions of ~1.2 solar masses ...

6500 light years compressed into 1 light day = each dimension of three divided by 2374076,25 = volume divided by 2374076,25^3 = volume divided by 13380858872043196447,265625. You will forgive me if a take density as same and use volume ratio as proxy for mass ratio.

The solar masses involved would be 8,9680342007580373188746261217241 10^-20

...compressed into a space a perhaps 20 km.

20 km/2374076,25 = er, let's skip km ... 20,000m/2374076,25 = 0,00842432925227233118565589458216 - so the object would be compressed in a space by 8 millimeters.

These stars are very hot,

Probably, I would not want to go near the 8 millimeters without putting on immortality first.

have immensely strong magnetic fields which produce huge amounts of radiation,

Then God made a couple more of these when he sent ice age and as a product the carbon 14 rate in atmosphere rose?

and are the result of the supernovae of a star much larger than our sun.

To put such events and remnants at 1 light day is ludicrous.

I think one light day is a pretty safe distance from an 8 millimeter ultra-compressed heat source.

And to claim this could somehow be some smaller form of neutron star is not to understand the physics of such an object.

It least not to undertand it as you understand it - but I think astrophysics is moot, largely because of things like this.

Apart from the immense gravity well of this object, a substance made of pure neutrons simply can't exist for any useful period of time, much less the 1000 years since the supernova that produced the crab nebula pulsar.

[hansgeorg]

I would ask you the same question I asked hansgeorg and which he never answered.

I had one hour online Saturday, none Sunday. I am catching up.

Since you say the question you ask him is the same as the one you ask me, I think answering what you asked him is equivalant?

What makes you greater and wiser than these others?

Respect for tradition.

A dwarf standing on a giant's shoulder sees further away than a dwarf standing on the ground.

How can you judge yourself more capable than all of these.

Not more capable as a person.

And what gives you the special dispenation to rightfully reject their wisdom, especially when the majority of you theological argument stems from a demand we respect the very authorities you here reject, just in a different time and age

In the Catholic Church, though Popes are proximate rules of faith and tradition and Bible remote such, Tradition and Bible are also rules of faith per se.

+ Leonhard did not prove any of the Popes (at least those before Vatican II or before Pius XII) would have disagreed with me.

Jesus rightfully pointed out the folly of those that claim a superior religious position based on supposed allegiance to past leaders of the faith, all the while rejecting the living Messiah which stood before them.

Jesus did not before Pharisees claim to be Messiah, and He pointed out that their allegiance to Moses and the Prophets was precisely only a supposed one. Precisely by citing what they had really actually written.

[hansgeorg]

No John. Sin is forgiven, but not 'permitted'. Paul deals with the issue clearly. Grace is not license to sin but rather freedom from its bondage.

But to be consumed by hatred and prejudice as you demonstrate here is to return again to that same bondage

I don't see John Martin as "consumed by hatred and prejudice".

If anyone is prejudiced, you are. The one making accusations which could also be hatred is you.

[oxmixmudd]

And now Jim acts to project after the false allegation of ad hominems and the false arguments about Church authority. The dominos just keep falling against Jim's position.

JM

Are you just going to continue attacking me - the man - or are you going to return to some sort of discussion of something related to the topic?

Jim

[Sparko]

You should do the same with the theme of Christian cosmology and seek for the historical based doctrines, rather than the secular humanist, naturalist based empirical doctrines of modern cosmology. When you do, you will find there is a strong historical based consensus that God created the universe and the earth is stationary at the center of the rotating universe. That's what the history of Christian cosmology says, so why not believe it as a Christian? Empirical science cannot provide any proofs against it, so to deny the geocentric universe is really only a matter of personal preference.

We are called to be salt, so Geocentrism is salt for the modern secular humanist West that has fallen away from historical Christianity.

JM

sigh. The bible doesn't specify that the earth is flat or round, circling the sun or sun circling it. It speaks from the way people observed the world. They didn't have telescopes back then. So it is not speaking authoritatively on the matter. And the Church experts in the 2000 years hence, have changed their views as more knowledge has been gained. Unlike the Trinity, Geocentrism or Heliocentrism has nothing to do with salvation or the nature of God or doctrine. It is not even important to Christianity. That is why you are still able to be an orthodox Christian despite your wacky ideas. But actually, using my same standards of listening to the Church experts, I do believe in Heliocentrism because they do.

Why don't you?

[Roy]

Roy, were you keeping a list?
if so add Protestantism to it.

Done.

[oxmixmudd]

OK, then why didn't you say that? Ah, tired. Sorry, happens. Happens to the best, even to me!

Other option, I can take it that scientists are heavily wrong on what pulsars are.

Yes, I think they are found within 1 light day from us, but I also think they are correspondingly smaller. And therefore correspondingly less damaging to their immediate surroundings.

Again, the material they are made of, their density, their gravitational effect on the objects around them, their emissions, all correspond to a certain kind of object. In the case of the crab nebula pulsar, we observed its formation event in 1054AD. We know it is a supernova remnant. We also have observed since its inception the a similar supernova in the large magellenic clouds - SN1987a mentioned earlier. Only this one is over 160,000 light years hence. With this event, not only have we watched the supernova, we have watched the actual light from the event cross the heavens, and we have watched material both preceding and folloing the explosion race away from the projenator star, catch up with earlier ejected material, and generate a huge collision and subsequent radiation.

All of these events, including the propagation of the light itself, taking place on a scale consistent with that 160,000 light year distance. Indeed, your sphere simply can't be 1 light day hence unless light itself is slowed in the sphere so that it can only propagate at a fraction of what it does near the Earth. Further, this propagation delay needs to vary with the apparent distance of the object - as we have observed light propagating from other objects closer to us crossing correspondingly larger portions of the sky in the same time.

So, in effect, you sphere has depth, where that depth corresponds to different light propagation velocities, proportional to the apparent sizes of the objects themselves. In fact, your sphere is mathematically equivalent to and indistinguishable fom a universe over 13 billion light years across, to the point where we could expect any object launched into it to shink as it moved into it occupying less and less space.

Quite the house of mirrors this heavenly sphere - isn't it? But if there is no physical difference between your sphere and a vast universe, nothing that could ever allow us to detect its 'proximity' - upon what do you base your assertion it is, in fact, a sphere only 1 light day away? Sounds more like a story you just made up to comfort you at night.

"though as all evidence indicates the writers of Genesis 1 thought that the sky literally was a fixed dome above the Earth"

All evidence, as in?

Writers of Genesis 1, as God and Moses?

"your tendency towards the belief that culturally formed references"

I have a belief that whatever God included as per author narrative in His word, reflects His references, whatever culturally formed ones might come between.

first there is our knowledge of the cultures themselves. Second there is the fact the word used to describe the sky (raqia) is used only one other place in scripture (Ezekial) and it is used there to describe a crystalline dome over the throne of God. Third there is the fact that the birds are described as flying before the face of the sky, implying it is a surface. Fourth there are sluices, openings in it which allow rain and manna to traverse between heaven and earth through it. Fifth is holds up the oceans of heaven, separating them from the waters on the Earth. Sixth job (as regards culture) Job describes the heavens as being made of cast metal. And so on. The ancient perception of the heavens as some sort of dome is reflected in nearly every scriptural reference to the sky, and indeed is what driving your misperception that to be faithful to scripture and God one must accept these cultural refernces as inspired revelation of a scientific nature.

No, you were not intent on capturing what there could be legitimate about my stance, thank you for admitting it. What were you saying about libel to John Martin, again?

The was no intent to misrepresent your position. Just no desire to spend a lot of time clarifying subtle differences that make no difference whatsoever in the viability of the concept. The scriptures themselves use 'sky' (raqia) to describe every element of what you refer to as your sphere 1 light day hence (it is that into which is placed the Sun, moon and stars -every visible celestial object). If you are not offended by the scripture's use of the term to describe your concept, why are you offended by my own similar use?

The point was that what I call sky differs from what I call one light day away, it includes also objects which I consider accurately (or fairly so) measured by simultaneous trigonometry as per distance.

You quibbling over trivialities. The reality is that we have measured accurately by trigonometric parallax distances to stars as much as 20,000 light years hence. Your 'theory' that God sets His angels to the task of deceiving observers by moving stars around so as to simulate trigonometric parallax and hide their true nature is nothing less than heretical. If places God in Satan's position as deceiver. It is not a position of ANY church catholic or otherwise (or legimate religion that I know of). It's a device of your own invention that is contrary to the very nature of God as revealed in scripture.

By shotoff, I mean another thread. The one I linked to.

ok

"your own illegitimacy as an interpreter of science"

I don't pretend to "interpret science". I might pretend to reflect on scientific facts or methods, on scientific conclusions or misconclusions.

I realize your knowledge of science is weak, almost non-existent. But there-in lies the rub. You have no idea how presposterous and ridiculous your idea that the heavens are a sphere 1 light day hence is. At least, as you have postulated it. I've given a more reasonable interpretation (the idea it is mathematically equivalent projection that behaves exaclty like the universe most of us accept), but the problem there is that it is equivalent. The stars are not actually smaller, they just exist in a construct invisible to us effectively observable as the sphere only outside the universe itself - where God can be but we cannot.

"your own illegitimacy as an interpreter of ... and scripture"

As being a Catholic, at least more legitimate than a Protestant.

We are all saved by Grace and faith in Christ. The RCC had grown corrupt at the time of Luther and has in fact been forced back onto a better course through the Reformation, a change all Christians benefit from - Protestant or RCC. I do not accept this apparent division that you and John wallow in. I accept all believers in Christ as part of the truly universal (Catholic) church of God - the Body of Christ. And I do believe that at some point, possibly not too far hence, we will all be reconciled as we all should be in Spirit now. We all belong to Christ, We are all His. You would do well to leave this disdain for your brothers in Christ where it belongs - far in the past behind us.

I think I already answered the most relevant thing about neutron stars, in what I answered about pulsars. Smaller than imagined by astrophysics.

It is not 'imagined', it is measured. We know their mass, we know their behaviour, we know the laws of physics that goven much of what they are. And there is not just one, but many of these objects. Some of them spin hundreds, in one case even thousands of times per second. There is no 'small' object that could mimic what we observe only 1 light day hence (at least no object not manufactured with the specific goal of deceiving us into thinking it's a spinning neutron star).

Was there anything more? In fact, you had. I am sorry I was absent during the weekend, am homeless and try to find shelter and needed much of it this weekend due to a cold.



Let's break this down:



6500 light years compressed into 1 light day = each dimension of three divided by 2374076,25 = volume divided by 2374076,25^3 = volume divided by 13380858872043196447,265625. You will forgive me if a take density as same and use volume ratio as proxy for mass ratio.

The solar masses involved would be 8,9680342007580373188746261217241 10^-20



20 km/2374076,25 = er, let's skip km ... 20,000m/2374076,25 = 0,00842432925227233118565589458216 - so the object would be compressed in a space by 8 millimeters.



Probably, I would not want to go near the 8 millimeters without putting on immortality first.



Then God made a couple more of these when he sent ice age and as a product the carbon 14 rate in atmosphere rose?





I think one light day is a pretty safe distance from an 8 millimeter ultra-compressed heat source.

Made of neutrons that would not have sufficient mass to stay intact. These free neutrons would then dissipate and decay in just a few hours. further, again, such a small mass could not maintain its heat because of the high surface area to volume ration - there would need to be some external mechanism necessary to maintain its temperature over the years we have directly observed the object.

In short - you don't understand what you don't know, and so it makes sense to you, but not to anyone with a high school physic class competency in the relative topics.

And what you also don't inderstand are the literally trillions of objects in this universe that would require direct intervention of 'angels' to maintain the illusion of their history and physical properties. Again - you have set God and His angels on a purposed mission to willfully deceive the entire human race. Normally one would call that Herasy. You would do much better to move to the Martin/Sungenis position. At least they have not made God into a giant deceiver (though their 'models' are sorely lacking).

It least not to undertand it as you understand it - but I think astrophysics is moot, largely because of things like this.



Excuse me, are you saying we have been watching the crab nebula for 1000 years?

The progenator star - yes. The supernova that produced the pulsar and nebula was observed by all of mankind in 1054 ad. The nebula was first observed and catelogued by Charles Messier. Discovery of the pulsar came in the mid 20th century. Detailed observations of the central pulsar with the Hubble Space Telescope. You should look that up. We have direct time lapse images of material moving out violently from the pulsar.


No, I'm saying we watched the supernova happen as a race in 1054 AD. We know the velocities of the exapanding gasses of the remnant. We have observed in one form or another this supernova and its remnant for almost 1000 years.

And are you really sure the obbject would be analysed as pure neutrons with these measurements at the starting point?

Not sure the point of your question. The structure of a neutron star is complex, but clearly we have not directly measured its substance. It is too far away, and its surrounding envrionment too hostile to do so. We do have accelerators where we can conduct experiments on matter at various energies and temperatures and from that can deduce at least approximately what form the matter must take under the conditions found in a neutron star. There are also, as I said earlier, many of these sorts of objects to observe. And so we can discern much about their properties and behavior through direct observation.


If you expect me to play the game of trying to prove angels don't move the stars around so as to simulate parralax, then you can forget it. I accept the parallax measurements that give us direct measures to stars with sufficient accuracy to be confident they are in fact stars like the Sun, some bigger, some smaller. And for both scientific and theological reasons. God is not the Great Deceiver - the other fellow is.

The behavior of neutron stars in the vicinity of such stars tells us they are super dense compact objects. That is the reality you have to deal with or pretend doesn't exist.

Jim

[oxmixmudd]

I don't see John Martin as "consumed by hatred and prejudice".

If anyone is prejudiced, you are. The one making accusations which could also be hatred is you.

Have I yet once directly attacked you or John personally, or the legitimacy of either of your religious faith, in this thread?

Has John attacked me and my religious faith directly in this thread?

That is all you need to know.

Jim

[hansgeorg]

sigh. The bible doesn't specify that the earth is flat or round,

So far correct.

circling the sun or sun circling it.

Joshua 10?

It speaks from the way people observed the world.

Joshua 10:12, with miracle worker speaking to the objects?

They didn't have telescopes back then. So it is not speaking authoritatively on the matter.

Telescopes have so NOT discovered Heliocentrism to be true.

The judges of Galileo in the first process (when he was not formally a suspect but still a kind of defendant) may not have looked through one themselves, but they did ask Clavius to do so for them.

Nothing which Galileo could directly document by sightings in telescope was condemned.

And the Church experts in the 2000 years hence, have changed their views as more knowledge has been gained.

Not sure very much more knowledge will be gained.

Unlike the Trinity, Geocentrism or Heliocentrism has nothing to do with salvation or the nature of God or doctrine.

It has. Perhaps not much, but some.

In Joshua 10, it has to do with what accuracy we can expect from a miracle worker speaking inspired by God.

In metaphysics, the Prima Via of St Thomas Aquinas largely if not entirely depends on Geocentrism, as you see if you look up parallels in Summa Contra Gentes. It was an echo of St John of Damascus and of Romans 1 and of Josephus' crediting Abraham with a similar proof for one God.

It is not even important to Christianity.

And it is of course rather important, since a few centuries, for credibility of Papal infallibility.

That is why you are still able to be an orthodox Christian despite your wacky ideas.

You know what? "Wacky" doesn't define a heresy, even if some heresies are wacky for real.

Contradicting Bible or Tradition defines heresy.

But actually, using my same standards of listening to the Church experts, I do believe in Heliocentrism because they do.

But what are the "Church experts" you accept as such?

And what do they as Church experts have to offer on the matter if they already decided that the question is not adressed in the Bible?

Why don't you?

I do believe all that Leo XIII says in Providentissimus Deus and most of what Benedict XV says in In Praeclara Summorum.

I believe he faltered, but did not oblige us to do so, on the Geocentric issue.

[hansgeorg]

Have I yet once directly attacked you or John personally, or the legitimacy of either of your religious faith, in this thread?

Has John attacked me and my religious faith directly in this thread?

He has "attacked" the "legitimacy" of Protestantism, like any Catholic.

You have attacked his character by taking it as a personal and hatefilled attack on you.

Your "faith" cannot be legitimate if it doesn't square with Matthew 28.

Now, for the pulsars, I was just writing an article on my blog, will be back in a moment.

[Sparko]

Joshua 10 is speaking from the perspective of those on Earth. We believe the Earth orbits the sun but we still say the sun rises and sets. Obviously this was a miracle and either time stopped, or the Earth stopped rotating.

[hansgeorg]

Again, the material they are made of, their density, ...

You are repeating the supposed knowledge of these things over and over again, I am sorry I won't answer each occurrence in detail.

Item 1: "known" nature of neutron stars.

I think I have dealt with it here:

Neutron Stars - a Geocentric Minority Report

Intermingling own observations with the data I glean from the two wiki articles:

RX J1856.5-3754
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RX_J1856.5-3754

400 ly - 1 light day : 146097 reduction of every dimension

14 km
14000 m

17km
17000 m

0,09582674524459776723683580087202
0,11636104779701157450187204391603

1 dm

PSR J0108-1431
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PSR_J0108-1431

424 light years - light day : somewhat greater reduction, if needed?

It is considered a very old pulsar with an estimated age of 166 million years and a rotation period of 0.8 seconds.

No actual size given, but I think the "apparent sizes" were comparable, and so are the distances considered as correct.

A rotation period of 0.8 seconds does fit a bit better with an object of 1 dm diameter than an object of 14 km diameter, right?

What were the apparent magnitudes again?

RX J1856.5-3754 : ~25.6
PSR J0108-1431 : ≤ 27.8

If apparent magnitudes are comparable, the real ones would also be comparable in the sphere of the fixed stars. And if apparent magnitudes are comparable and false "parallax calculated" distances are comparable, then calculated "real magnitudes" would also be comparable.

In other words, both objects would have a size about 1 dm in diameter.

And if an object has a rotation period of 0.8 seconds, 1 dm in diameter gives a vastly different approach to its energy than 14 km in diameter.

A magisterial example of how false assumptions about distances can give us false conclusions about the nature of a thing - not unlike the false assumptions evolutionists do about ages.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St Nicolas of Myra
6.XII.2016

Item 2 : "accurately measured parallax" or however you motivated the distance measures as "known".

Geocentrism deals with that.

If angels can move celestial objects, that means stars are not immoivably fixed in one place.

That in turn is also shown by what you acknowledge as "proper movement".

This means that presuming alpha Centauri rests in one place and Earth in a known distance accounts for the visible (or indirectly so) angle of 0.76 arc seconds won't prove it is not the other way round.

This means, we can't measure any distance from the 0.76 arc seconds of "parallax" any more than from the 20 arc seconds of "aberration". That settles the "known distances".

A more detailed discussion will be provided from a blog post if you ask for it.

Item 3 your allegation that, if this is correct:

a) God and angels are deceiving
and b) all of mankind is deceived.

a) The ones who are deceived are simply those who decide to take the 20 arc seconds and the 0.76 arc seconds as respectively aberration and parallax, rather than as 20.76 or 19.24 arc seconds dance move performed by an angel or who simply ignore all of the arc seconds, which are most of mankind.

God and angels are, once again, NOT "deceivers" because they do choices that come out as deceptive to certain men who have made certain choices of interpretation which are erroneous.

If for instance you consider me as making an erroneous choice of Bible interpretation, you will not consider God deceived me by writing the Bible so that I could misinterpret it, I hope.

Or, when it comes to stars, the horoscopes are (unlike predictions made from them) physical facts about position of ecliptic stars and planets relative to us. Your whining would allow an astrologer to whine if you called astrology in question, since on any Christian view, God is in fact behind the physical phenomena known as horoscopes.

b) You seem to think astronomers and especially modern Heliocentric ones are mankind.

They are not.

Or that they represent mankind before God.

They do not.

You also seem to think, erroneously, that the Crab Nebula has been continually sighted all through 1000 years of continuous astronomical observation. Not true.

The object sighted by Chinese 1000 years ago is a good candidate for identity with the object you call Crab Nebula, but that is about it.

In these 1000 years, most of mankind has had other occupations than gazing at stars for that particular nebula or back then nova, and those who have been looking at stars have had more healthy pre-occupations than actually try to prove in minute physical detail an astrophysics and on top of it to exclude God and angels from the causes of visible moves.

Was there any little item I forgot?

Yes, 4, your tone:

"Just no desire to spend a lot of time clarifying subtle differences that make no difference whatsoever in the viability of the concept."

I think that counts as nonchalance. Namely about the subject of the thread.

"Your 'theory' that God sets His angels to the task of deceiving observers"

Wilfully ignoring a clarification already made on no deception being involved. = Nonchalance of my real position.

"I realize your knowledge of science is weak, almost non-existent"

a) calling me ignorant
b) calling your own insult a realisation

"And what you also don't inderstand"

Calling me stupid or ignorant.

"the literally trillions of objects in this universe that would require direct intervention of 'angels' to maintain the illusion of their history and physical properties."

Once again, I have not said any illusions are being maintained by any other means than by your faulty interpretations, and you use the occasion to paint me out as of little understanding.

Furthermore, I see no problem in trillions of angels having trillions of trinkets with which to dance in honour of God - like Chinese dance with alnterns on their New Year.

"The RCC had grown corrupt at the time of Luther and has in fact been forced back onto a better course through the Reformation, a change all Christians benefit from - Protestant or RCC."

Branch theory and denial of the visible unity of the Church, which is however taught by Our Lord very clearly.

"You would do well to leave this disdain for your brothers in Christ where it belongs - far in the past behind us."

Interpreting a certain distaste for heretical theology as disdain of those holding it + appealing to the difference between "past" and "present" for theological clarity. No, there are dividing lines like Incarnation and a few more, up to Pentecost, Destruction of Temple, Apocalypse, death (?) of St John with a miracle to it (just disappearance up to Heaven body and soul?), but after that, no more such divides between past and present.

If you treat Luther and the Reformation or "John XXIII" and Vatican II as introducing such, you have a problem in ecclesiology.

If I and John Martin point it out, it need not be disdain, but if you insist on interpreting ANYTHING said from a Catholics ONLY are the visible Church p o v as disdain or hatred, you show quite a lot of ill will or at least bad feeling yourself.

I left Sweden so as NOT to be forced, time after time to spend my life with Protestants as well as Atheists.

And what I object to with Protestant company is not discussions about apologetics, it is your attitude to faithful Catholics. OK, one other has shown worse manners, or occasionally even a third, but now it is you.