SamBridge

So how do you think we calculated the first star distances before we had any sort of "probe"?

The point is that creating that which god cannot lift does not have anything to do with omnipotence anymore than my building a house does, that's my point. No matter what, if there is a physical obstacle he cannot overcome, he cannot be omnipotent, if there is something he cannot lift even if it's something he created, then he cannot be omnipotent. Whether he can do that or has done that is pure speculation or guessing. Because of this, if we cannot create the weight, then because that is another physical limitation he cannot be omnipotent. There's no paradox, it's just that no matter what, there has to be something he cannot do. If he isn't omnipotent then we don't have to assume he can create a weight in the first place.

If the fly was traveling at 35 miles per second and there was no wind resistance then yes, there should be some measurable change. I'm not exactly sure that's true, if they know the mass of the comet, it's velocity, direction and the gravitational distortion caused by the sun they can model it's trajectory very precisely as they have done to launch probes to wiz around planets to reach other planets and explore them. Tracking every comet or asteroid that we haven't found yet is hard, but if we have enough time in advanced we have the technology to propel a weight or missile fast enough to slightly change its course based on where we think the asteroid will be at a certain time. If it is highly eccentric it could get close enough to the sun to reach a huge velocity, but that's why we would try and calculate it's path before it got to the sun. If all the planning fails we can try and use as much nukes as we have and see if that's enough. I'm not totally optimistic but I don't think we have no idea what to do either, there's definitely things we can try.

Actually in enhanced interrogation of people like terrorists the interrogators will often do things like question the religion of the terrorists and point out flaws in it.

But that is my argument, creating something I can't lift would definitely mean I'm not omnipotent, the problem is that creating such a thing seems to be only associated with some kind of spiritual barbel or something ridiculous like that. What if god just plainly can't lift an entire star? Well, then he's not omnipotent, he can't do every single thing possible, like lifting a star. I can spend months collecting enough iron and wood to create a house, but I can't lift a house, I don't think I'm omnipotent.

10 Kilometers is pretty big, but at that incredibly large distance, trillions of miles from us more than eight light minutes, an impact from a large weight at a certain velocity for even half a degree shift would be enough to steer it off course, that's their first planned measure for meteors that are on a course for Earth, problem is if the asteroid is too loose the weight may not impact the whole asteroid enough or if the asteroid is rotating heavily it may hit at the wrong angle and just make the asteroid spin differently. Otherwise we'd have to vaporize the asteroid, the amount of nukes it would take to completely vaporize it could end up damaging Earth in some way if the asteroid is too close or the asteroid could be loose enough that the explosion does not effect enough of the rocks as there is no atmosphere to carry any shockwaves. Though we at one point had enough nukes to destroy the entire Earth a few times over, I think NASA's definitely considered using them on an asteroid.

There's different models for shapes of the universe. Currently cosmologists most likely suspect it is merely an indefinitely large flat plane due to no measurements of any visible boundary as well as an inconsistent and nearly immeasurable curvature that so far suggests the observable universe does not close back in on itself in a relative 5 dimensional sphere shape or saddle shape. Theoretically, if the universe is a single bubble of existence, there cannot be anything outside of it by it's own definition, so there must be either a closure or it is infinitely large, and it looks like we have more evidence against it being closed. Perhaps the infinitely large property would explain why we see the universe bigger than it should be if our age for it is correct, or how it could have "expanded" faster than light. Of course the spherical model offers a much simpler explanation for this expansion, but as I said before we just can't seem to find any evidence of any curvature.

If NASA sees a comet this far in advanced they would likely have enough time to plan out a counter measure for when it loops around, but based on the fact that they have made no such attempts it most likely will not hit Earth. There's been closer comets before that have grazed the atmosphere. Besides, it cannot possibly be "globally" visible unless it circles the entire Earth within a day, so if you are monotheistic you'd have to ask why god would give some people a fair warning and others none at all, though you should be asking about a lot more than that in the first place.

There is sort of a consensus actually, one of the biology or chemistry experts around here mentioned it in another topic I saw that I can't seem to find, I hope they see this request.

If you know how long ago the universe started expanding, it's initial size as well as it's growth rate you could model the radius. However we don't concretely have any of these things, supposedly space was expanding even faster than light, all we can see is the radius of the sphere we observe.

Micro black holes can theoretically exist, but due to the uncertainty in their energy modeled by Hawking Radiation the micro black holes would only exist for an instant before they would evaporate.

So we should agree he's most likely not as omnipotent as we thought.

If he can create something that he cannot lift that does not proves omnipotence. I can easily weld some pieces of metal together that I can't lift, doesn't mean anything.

Ok, so why wouldn't you use the method you used to calculate those 6 stars stars to calculate the hidden star? Your method is rather pointless. Again, there is still no guarantee whatsoever the lines will intersect exactly where you want them to.

But with only the information of intersecting lines, you have no way of knowing how far away the hidden star is from your intersection which is a mere approximation of the general region with no guarantee it will be in the same vicinity. You don't seem to understand that if we don't know already where the hidden star is, we cannot determine how far away it is from the intersecting lines and thus it is not reliable for any sort of accuracy. There is still the point of why you wouldn't use the same methods you used to calculate those 200 million stars on the hidden stars rather than intersecting lines. How did people find the distance of the first 5 stars? Your method wouldn't even work.

Well, how exactly do we know there aren't invisible unicorns unless we make logical conjectures about their existence and compare it to our experiences and laws of physics? If you don't, you aren't doing anything more than assuming.

If you're asking if a photon get's destroyed, photon's get destroyed all the time. If you're asking if energy get's destroyed however, even when it does in small amounts get destroyed or created, the balance is usually sustained, energy get's destroyed in virtual pairs as much as it's created, so even in that instance there is still a conservation. Energy already in existence doesn't really go away. Well that's too bad because they aren't religions.

But even if you had 200 million stars, there is still no guarantee that any 3 pairs of stars will intersect exactly where you need them to, they will only intersect wherever they happen by chance to intersect. Looking at the size of space and the fact you could fit every observed star in a sphere from here to Proxima Centari, I would say the chances are pretty slim.

You don't have to assume something in question exists, you can merely make logical conjectures off an axiom just to see what happens.

Wasn't there already a proof? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiles's_proof_of_Fermat's_Last_Theorem

This is for you sci-fi fans How many Vulcans does it take to screw in a light bulb?

It seems in this context that god is depicted as an omnipotent being. The easy solutions are of course that it either isn't real or that it isn't omnipotent.

To be fair, a god could exist, just not in the exact way depicted by any particular religion. It would make sense if there were at least some limits or that it in a way was the entire universe itself.

Which cannot be done with your method. This also points out something else: If you can calculate those stars without your method, why not other stars like the "hidden" star?

I'm pretty sure there's easy automated ways to take care of much of the commercial spam we see. For instance, simply make a rule in the php code that one must post 5 times before being able to post a link to anything.