Is the Stationary Earth the Heaviest Object in the Universe?

[One Bad Pig]

Wow, how convenient. On one hand, you argue that no Pope has said anything against your opinions. On the other, when a Pope has, you simply define him as a non-Pope.

There's no way you can lose!

In fairness, Catholics in general do this with popes, but it's usually done some time after the fact. There are quite a few "anti-popes" in RCC history.

[hansgeorg]

There are quite a few "anti-popes" in RCC history.

Dimond brothers counted to approx. 40 of them.

[hansgeorg]

but it's usually done some time after the fact.

In cases with parallel papacies, each pope is counting the other(s) as antipope(s).

[One Bad Pig]

In cases with parallel papacies, each pope is counting the other(s) as antipope(s).

Yes, that would be an exception.

[hansgeorg]

Yes, that would be an exception.

Sure it's not the more normal case?

Most cases of antipopes having been cases of usurpation (claiming papacy when someone else was rightfully Pope) rather than actual tyranny (imposing heresy or bad canon law from a quasipapal position)?

Of course, St Felix II and Liberius (?) were rivals, but the case was peacefully resolved when Liberius cleared himself.

[Sea of red]

That is a very biassed way of putting it.

Facts have no biases.

Now, the title of this thread, "Is the Stationary Earth the Heaviest Object in the Universe?" puts one of the items as a question, and the question was not posed by me.

My hunch is that you probably buy into it no differently than John Martin. You're both cut from the same cloth, but your advocating of geocentrism is contemptible enough without it.

As for "that simple physical laws that humanity has known for years are academic conspiracies" I don't know who would be suggesting that.

Please.

The other items on the list have been very wodely held by most of mankind, so, you are basically saying most of mankind is insane, historically, or that agreeing with most of mankind has become insane.

It has nothing to do with the whole mankind and everything to do with the endless stream of physical evidence that humanity has accumulated for half a millennium. Everyone else on this board was taught this stuff in elementary school, and understood it from a young age. These are not difficult concepts - even most fifth graders grasp them. That you 't either don't grasp these concepts or are willfully ignoring what they lead to, tells me you're not someone to take seriously regardless.

That is to say the least a very agressive tone.

And "seeing a doctor" is an euphemism for psychiatric harrassment, which also is ... not a very peaceful thing to suggest.

Well somebody in this world has to honest with you and tell you the truth - even if it upsets you.

Whatever the reasons you have for believing these ridiclous things about reality, they are not good enough to excuse you from being such a lazy thinker. If you can have sense enough to navigate a web forum, then you can damn sure use a search engine and educate yourself. It's not hard to find results answering these questions at all, and there are many other places like http://physics.stackexchange.com/ for these kind of idiotic questions, and they usually have old topics that have covered this stuff before. Please stop spamming this forum with this crankry, and go bother those people with this stuff, instead of taking advantage of the generosity of the users here. Most people here want to read serious science and not have to scroll past this stuff for pages.

[Sparko]

I am declaring myself Pope.

[hansgeorg]

Facts have no biases.

Facts no. But your words were not limited to such.

My hunch is that you probably buy into it no differently than John Martin. You're both cut from the same cloth, but your advocating of geocentrism is contemptible enough without it.

For my part, I don't think the weight of earth can be ascertained with any certainty.

I have not verified what exactly John Martin's view was, but I thought it looked as if he was presenting a hunch of one solution, not his definite one.

Please.

It has nothing to do with the whole mankind and everything to do with the endless stream of physical evidence that humanity has accumulated for half a millennium. Everyone else on this board was taught this stuff in elementary school, and understood it from a young age. These are not difficult concepts - even most fifth graders grasp them. That you 't either don't grasp these concepts or are willfully ignoring what they lead to, tell me you're not someone take seriously regardless.

I am sorry, but knowledge "accumulated for half a millennium" does not stamp ignorance of the rest of mankind as madness, even if actually knowledge.

And as for physical evidence, in the case of observational evidence, I cite you to name one.

Well somebody in this world has to honest with you and tell you the truth - even if it upsets you.

Whatever the reasons you have for believing these ridiclous things about reality, they are not good enough to excuse you from being such a lazy thinker. If you can have sense enough to navigate a web forum, then you can damn sure use a search engine and educate yourself. It's not hard to find results answering these questions at all, and there many other places like http://physics.stackexchange.com/ for these kind of idiotic questions, and they usually have old topics that have covered this stuff before. Please stop spamming this forum with this crankry, and go bother those people with this stuff, instead of taking advantage of the generosity of the users here. Most people here want to read serious science and not have to scroll past this stuff for pages.

I am not "upset", I am insulted, potentially threatened, should people like you decide on psychiatric matters.

You can pick any piece of evidence from that site you like on this thread, and I can see if I think it proves the modern cosmology.

I think I will have seen most of it before.

As for what you want to see, the excuse is very lame, since you can easily skip this thread if you like.

[hansgeorg]

I am declaring myself Pope.

Are you a Roman Catholic?

[Sparko]

Are you a Roman Catholic?

I was baptized into the Catholic church as an infant in Germany.

[rogue06]

In fairness, Catholics in general do this with popes, but it's usually done some time after the fact. There are quite a few "anti-popes" in RCC history.

True, but they generally have a bit more support than their parents and three friends getting together and declaring them pope.

[Roy]

I was baptized into the Catholic church as an infant in Germany.

So was Hitler.

[rogue06]

So was Hitler.

If he was baptized before the age of three it would have been in Austria where he was born.

[One Bad Pig]

True, but they generally have a bit more support than their parents and three friends getting together and declaring them pope.

Quite.

[Sparko]

So was Hitler.

But he wasn't Pope. I am.

16026660606_867f37ddc1_m.jpg