My FTL Challenge

[sjastro]

Where did I say it was created yesterday, then observed in 1987?

Try reading your own posts.

The light we're seeing from SN1987A could have left yesterday, if God so willed it.

The fact that SN1987 was first observed on February 23rd 1987 but could have left yesterday if God so willed it contradicts your denial of having stated it.

 

[AV1611VET]

Try reading your own posts.

The fact that SN1987 was first observed on February 23rd 1987 but could have left yesterday if God so willed it contradicts your denial of having stated it.

Wow -- just wow.

Suit yourself.

You're not interested in learning, are you?

 

[sjastro]

That's your opinion, isn't it?

Why don't try reading the entire post instead of cherry picking.
Here is the Peter quote again.

knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone's own interpretation. 21 For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

Are you going to stand up and tell us this verse does not apply to you in the slightest.

 

[sjastro]

Wow -- just wow.

Suit yourself.

You're not interested in learning, are you?

Are you in total denial of having of having made the post or you don't even comprehend what you write?

 

[AV1611VET]

Are you in total denial of having of having made the post or you don't even comprehend what you write?

It's lightbulb time, sjastro.

I hate to put such a heavy burden on you guys, but this stuff is old -- ridiculously old.

 

[sjastro]

It's lightbulb time, sjastro.

I hate to put such a heaven burden on you guys, but this stuff is old -- ridiculously old.

The term is heavy burden.
While you are legend in your own mind thinking you are providing lightbulb moments, in the real world you are one awfully confused individual.

 

[AV1611VET]

The term is heavy burden.

Thank you for the correction.

 

[Kylie]

You're desperate to keep yourself confused, aren't you?

No, it seems more like you are desperate to keep it vague.

Okay. This time, I'll humor you. But believe me, I'd better see a light bulb come on, or I'm going to start humoring your questions in another far less serious way. Notice you gave me only three axes, but are asking for four?

But I'm here to make sure you'll confuse yourself, so here goes:

X = length
Y = height
Z = width (or breadth for those trying to stay confused)

Ephesians 3:18 May be able to comprehend with all saints what is the breadth, and length, and depth, and height;

Paul mentions "depth" -- or the "fourth dimension" for confusion purposes.

(This is why I claim to be ignorant, but I'm not nearly ignorant enough to be a college graduate today. I truly feel sorry and pray for you guys.)

So you complain that I gave you three axes, but asked for four. But then you turn around and somehow fit all four of the axes into the three that are labelled! And in doing so, you reveal that two of the dimensions ARE THE SAME THING! So I did NOT give you four dimensions, I gave you THREE, and you just pointed out that two of them, width and breadth, are the same dimension.

So stop with the "four dimensions are in the Bible," nonsense, you've just admitted that they are synonyms. By your logic, I can claim that there are four people in the following photo:

And those four people are:

1. James Kirk
2. Spock
3. The Captain
4. Leonard McCoy.

Because according to your logic, if something can be referred to in more than one way, we get to count it more than once, right?

 

[Kylie]

Show me, dear self-confused one, where I ever said that.

I remember saying the STARS were homes to the angels, but not supernova.

Then, when a third of the angels followed Lucifer in his insurrection, God destroyed some of their homes as a testimony to the other angels as to what can happen to their homes as well.

I even named the star that God destroyed, didn't I (Sanduleak)?

Fine then. Take my earlier comment and substitute "Star" for wherever I said "supernova".

Nope. I wouldn't either. Since you misquoted me (as usual).

And now since I have corrected the misquote (although it was a supernova long before you claim the universe ever existed and thus could never have actually been a star, but I guess you'll just tell logic to take a hike, even when it's based on your own beliefs), please tell me if you think I should now find it remotely convincing.

 

[AV1611VET]

And now since I have corrected the misquote (although it was a supernova long before you claim the universe ever existed and thus could never have actually been a star, but I guess you'll just tell logic to take a hike, even when it's based on your own beliefs), please tell me if you think I should now find it remotely convincing.

We're done, Kylie.

Until I see a light bulb, we're finished.

This sentence of yours:

But then you turn around and somehow fit all four of the axes into the three that are labelled!

... shows you have no idea what I'm saying.

 

[Kylie]

We're done, Kylie.

Until I see a light bulb, we're finished.

This sentence of yours:

... shows you have no idea what I'm saying.

I know exactly what you said.

You said:

X = length
Y = height
Z = width (or breadth for those trying to stay confused)

Emphasis mine.

The bit in red is where you said breadth was the same exact axis as width. Thus breadth and width are merely two different names for the same thing, not two different things.

 

[AV1611VET]

The bit in red is where you said breadth was the same exact axis as width. Thus breadth and width are merely two different names for the same thing, not two different things.

Have a good day.

 

[Kylie]

Have a good day.

Why do you run when I'm just pointing out your own words?

 

[Moral Orel]

And didn't Paul mention four dimensions?

Ephesians 3:18 May be able to comprehend with all saints what is the breadth, and length, and depth, and height;

No. Depth and height are the same dimension.

 

[Moral Orel]

The fact that SN1987 was first observed on February 23rd 1987 but could have left yesterday if God so willed it contradicts your denial of having stated it.

I'm going to have to wash my hands after typing this, but I think @AV1611VET is actually right about your challenge to his statement. You're misreading what he wrote:

"The light we're seeing from SN1987A could have left yesterday, if God so willed it."

"Seeing" is present tense. He's talking about the light we see right now, not the light we first saw back in 1987.

 

[sjastro]

I'm going to have to wash my hands after typing this, but I think @AV1611VET is actually right about your challenge to his statement. You're misreading what he wrote:

"The light we're seeing from SN1987A could have left yesterday, if God so willed it."

"Seeing" is present tense. He's talking about the light we see right now, not the light we first saw back in 1987.

This is not correct as it would imply the supernova event is still occurring today.
The photons reaching us now are not associated with the event itself but its remnant.

The length of the supernova event is defined by its light curve which is the bump in the brightness vs time graph.

The supernova event started on Feb 23rd 1987 and was over by around late June 1987.
While the supernova was a reasonably bright naked eye event in 1987, today the remnant is extremely faint and requires long exposure imaging to be observed.

 

[Moral Orel]

The supernova event started on Feb 23rd 1987 and was over by around late June 1987.
While the supernova was a reasonably bright naked eye event in 1987, today the remnant is extremely faint and requires long exposure imaging to be observed.

Even NASA was still referring to observations of SN1987A in the present tense as of this article written in 2017:

NASA

 

[sjastro]

Even NASA was still referring to observations of SN1987A in the present tense as of this article written in 2017:

NASA

By definition a supernova is a temporary new star which at its peak can have a maximum luminosity comparable to the galaxy it resides in.

SN1987A is now classified as a SNR (Supernova Remnant) and is no longer a supernova as there is no process to increase and maintain its brightness.
The enormous increase in brightness after the explosion was first observed in late February 1987 was due to the production and decay of radioactive elements mainly ⁵⁶Ni → Co⁵⁶ → ⁵⁶Fe to produce x-ray photons which were absorbed by the ejecta and heated to extremely high temperatures which radiated light.
Since these radioactive elements have short half lives they disappeared rapidly and by May 1987 the supernova began to fade.

The light emitted by SNRs such as SN1987A is based on different mechanisms.
The shocks waves which drive the ejecta into the surrounding ISM (interstellar medium) result in synchrotron radiation where electrons in the ejecta are accelerated in a magnetic field of the ISM.
As the ejecta continues to expand and cool the electrons start recombining with nuclei to form heavier elements. This recombination process also radiates energy.

By comparison the light emitted by an SNR is insignificant to its parent supernova event.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

If you can roll a three-dimensional universe up as a scroll, then I would assume a fourth dimension is needed to do so ... correct?

And correct me if I'm wrong, but don't even scientists says there are some eleven or fourteen dimensions of space?

And didn't Paul mention four dimensions?

Ephesians 3:18 May be able to comprehend with all saints what is the breadth, and length, and depth, and height;

Oh good gracious, AV, those are literary terms (like simile and/or hyperbolic language?) used by Paul for emphasis about ethereal spiritual matters; he's not using them as literal descriptions for these events or phenomena ... !

There aren't "4 dimensions." And if Paul referred to the koine Greek term platos (πλάτος), he's simply referring to the idea of the "full landscape" [of the relationship of Christ with His Church] and its entire significance for us as Christians.

Then, the three dimensions that we all usually think of--height, width, depth--are metaphorically referring to the spiritual nuances of that same whole, wide relational landscape. And what's the upshot in this? It's this: Paul isn't referring to 'worm holes.'

Conclusion: we should be able to read that Paul isn't somehow definitively indicating here that these are 4 dimensions of our physical universe or that God will roll the universe up with a literal scrolling action .................................

And what should you be realizing here? Answer: That we [i.e. Christians everywhere, including Independent Baptists] need to stop reading the Bible in utter English and thereby erroneously attempting to conjure unsound deductions out of it.

 

[SavedByGrace3]

I am not sure how you could prove the device actually worked.