Is the Stationary Earth the Heaviest Object in the Universe?

[Christianbookworm]

My evidence is that a human mind, including mine, reflects the mind of God and that I have an unjaded view on what God would make the universe like.

If that is not enough, that is about as much as oxmixmudd has been giving against my angelic alternative to his mechanics, and as you may recall, he was heavily theological on it, while shunning the precise questions I did have an answer on.

You think God directly causes tsunamis??? And not earthquakes from plate tectonics? And why are you so special that you can claim to know the truth, but we don't if we all are made in God's image? And I doubt an omniscient Mind works exactly the same as ours.

[Roy]

My evidence is that a human mind, including mine, reflects the mind of God and that I have an unjaded view on what God would make the universe like.

So your "evidence" is merely your opinion.

Anyway, your mind is not unjaded. It's been clouded by the idiocies spread by Sungenis and others. In fact the very assumption that God was involved is jading.

[hansgeorg]

You think God directly causes tsunamis???

Or leaves that to angelic beings, including demons.

And not earthquakes from plate tectonics?

Who said these are only of inanimate causation?

And why are you so special that you can claim to know the truth, but we don't if we all are made in God's image?

Key word in above "unjaded". I took the trouble to get back to normal human perceptions of reality, by discarding modern ones.

And I doubt an omniscient Mind works exactly the same as ours.

That is one of the doubts by which the jading of human minds is effected in schools and other facilties.

[hansgeorg]

Anyway, your mind is not unjaded. It's been clouded by the idiocies spread by Sungenis and others. In fact the very assumption that God was involved is jading.

Perhaps of the kind you consider sharp wits.

But the process you consider as sharpening is precisely the one I call jading.

I was a YEC and became a Geocentric on my own before hearing of Sungenis. Who is, generally speaking, not idiotic.

[HMS_Beagle]

I took the trouble to get back to normal human perceptions of reality, by discarding modern ones.

None of the new-fangled scientific knowledge for me, no siree! Thor's hammer causes lightning, the Earth is flat, the stork brings the babies!

[Christianbookworm]

None of the new-fangled scientific knowledge for me, no siree! Thor's hammer causes lightning, the Earth is flat, the stork brings the babies!

Except he's a Christian, so Thor's hammer doesn't cause lightning. Instead, he must think that God deliberately causes fire to come from the heavens every time lightning strikes! Don't know what he thinks electricity is(tamed lightning ftw!).

[hansgeorg]

None of the new-fangled scientific knowledge for me, no siree! Thor's hammer causes lightning, the Earth is flat, the stork brings the babies!

Thor was a fraud*, Flat Earth was hardly universal, and stork bringing babies is exactly one pagan mythology plus one recent joke.

Except he's a Christian, so Thor's hammer doesn't cause lightning. Instead, he must think that God deliberately causes fire to come from the heavens every time lightning strikes! Don't know what he thinks electricity is(tamed lightning ftw!).

When the lightning just strikes, that is one thing. But when it strikes a man dead or a house on fire, or a tool on fire or an animal dead or a field or forest destroyed by fire, you can count on sth on the wrath of God being involved - not necessarily against the individual who is getting it, but sometimes that too.

I don't know how lightning being electricity could change that. Light bulbs are electricity, and yet no one doubts they show some obedience to human wills.

God's will and angels' wills just have other and better tools than switches.

* I hope he repented!

[Christianbookworm]

Thor was a fraud*, Flat Earth was hardly universal, and stork bringing babies is exactly one pagan mythology plus one recent joke.



When the lightning just strikes, that is one thing. But when it strikes a man dead or a house on fire, or a tool on fire or an animal dead or a field or forest destroyed by fire, you can count on sth on the wrath of God being involved - not necessarily against the individual who is getting it, but sometimes that too.

I don't know how lightning being electricity could change that. Light bulbs are electricity, and yet no one doubts they show some obedience to human wills.

God's will and angels' wills just have other and better tools than switches.

* I hope he repented!

You think Thor was a real being? If so, only humans can repent. And why must bad things from lightning always be because of God's wrath? It's almost always a case of being in the wrong place at the wrong time or not having a lightening rod!

[hansgeorg]

You think Thor was a real being? If so, only humans can repent.

Yes, I think he was a real human being. Like his father Odin, like his stepfather Niord, like his stepbrother Frey, like that one's son Fiolner (who, luckily for his soul, did not get divinised, but only damned for drunkenness). They are at the beginning of Snorre's history of the Swedish and Norse Yngling Dynasty, check the Heimskringla.

And why must bad things from lightning always be because of God's wrath?

I did not say always.

Job was not under God's wrath.

It's almost always a case of being in the wrong place at the wrong time or not having a lightening rod!

That is often a case of being under God's wrath, simply as being in the wrong place.

It's a gift to be simple it's a gift to be free, it's a gift to know just where you ought to be ...

[Roy]

But when it strikes a man dead or a house on fire, or a tool on fire or an animal dead or a field or forest destroyed by fire, you can count on sth on the wrath of God being involved - not necessarily against the individual who is getting it, but sometimes that too.
...
That is often a case of being under God's wrath, simply as being in the wrong place.

So an omniscient omnipotent being shoots lightning bolts and misses? That's not reality, that's golf humour.

[Christianbookworm]

So an omniscient omnipotent being shoots lightning bolts and misses? That's not reality, that's golf humour.

For the sarcastically impaired the following is said in jest

It's a warning shot!

Or it's just static electricity to a bajillion.

[JonF]

I'll quote this one first:

When SN1987A exploded, its light struck the central ring of gas after 0.658 years, illuminating it

In other words, the fault lies in calculating the radius' distance by assumption that the matter reached the inner ring at light speed

Your own quote rebuts you. The light struck the ring 0.658 years after the supernova. Traveling at light speed for 0.658 years. Last time I looked 0.658*c = 0.658 light years. One side of the triangle is 0.658 light years.

When any ejecta got to the ring is irrelevant; it's not part of the calculation.

[JonF]

Sorry, but if you take a certain ring to be 0.658 light years in radius BECAUSE it arrived in place 0.658 years after an initial explosion, it is assuming precisely that.

In other terms, you are to provide where the 0.658 light years' radius is derived from if not precisely from that.

The rings did not arrive in place after the supernova. Again your own source rebuts you.

The three bright rings around SN 1987A are material from the stellar wind of the progenitor.

That is, the rings were in place before the supernova.

The basis of the calculation is the fact that the light from the supernova struck the [b]preexistingt/b] rings 0.658 years after the supernova.

Can you calculate the radius of a ring that light takes 0.658 years to traverse?

[JonF]

Mods:whenever I try to edit one of my messages in Opera for Android I am told I specified an invalid message and the message disappear.

[JonF]

Hansgeorg:no your argument does not stand. Light took 0.658 years to reach the rings after it was produced at the supernova.

What distance does light travel in space in 0.658 years?