The wings depicted on angels wouldn't be sufficient to allow them to fly. The physics of it doesn't work. Again, the physics of it doesn't work. Physiologically, they couldn't move fast enough. And "vibrational frequency" and "cloaking" is just wishful pseudoscientific waffle from you.
That's interesting. Why not? There's nothing wishful about it. What's not genuine about the ideas I put forward? jan.
Assuming an angel weighs what they would as a normal person (so, lets take an average male specimen - five foot ten inches, one hundred and seventy pounds), we have a very good animal analogue for this: The Argentavis (link) bird: So, a 150 pound bird had a roughly 16 to 20 foot wingspan, so lets lowball it at 15 foot wingspan for simple math. If we assume that even five foot of that span is the birds "back" rather than wing (since span is tip to tip), that puts us at around 10 foot wingspan, or five feet long on EACH wing. Realistically, we are probably looking closer to 8 or 9 foot per wing. Your average depiction of an Angel has wings of maybe 3 to 5 feet. Even in the X-Men, Archangel's wings looked to be about 7 foot long total. There is another problem, though - locomotion of the wings. There is a reason we eat Chicken Breasts - their pectoral muscles are MASSIVE in terms of body size compared to even the most muscular of humans. Simply put, our skeletal and muscular structure isn't designed for avian style flight.
But are they good enough for angel flight? Also as I recall in all the depictions of angels the body mass appears vertical as opposed to birds horizontal orientation. And don't forget the chubby cherubs. Note how small their wings are compared to their body mass. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Yes. It is impossible for a human (or human-like being) to fly on Earth by adding bird wings to his back. It is impossible for a human (or a human-like being) to switch from being invisible to visible. Actually, that's not quite accurate. It is not possible using natural laws. It is quite possible in a theologian's imagination.
On the contrary. Angels, or an angel, lies at the heart of the development of the Mormon religion. Jan.
Angels are essentially “ministering spirits,” (Hebrews 1:14) and do not have physical bodies like humans. Jesus declared that “a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have” (Luke 24:37-39). Because they appear as human, doesn't mean they are. Jan.
Ah. So they are incorporeal floating spirits with magical powers, rather than beings that follow the laws of nature. Supernatural, in other words. Thanks for clearing that up. Now we can get back to the original discussion.
Who said they don't have bodies? Just because they don't have human bodies, it doesn't they don't have bodies. There's no need to invoke "magic". Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Jan.
There's no need for any kind of logic, since you can always make something up about it. It's the same problem with most religions.
You just did: "and do not have physical bodies like humans." But you've resolved the question, so time to get back to the original thread.
You do understand you are dealing with Yabut disease here right? I will post more about Yabut disease soon as it looks like a local outbreak. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Ah let it just it run here. I don't see the original subject poster complaining. Letting it run here at least keeps two stupid threads together. I never knew stupidity could be so entertaining. I have a morbid interest in watching those with Yabut disease twist and turn. I console myself with the knowledge Yabut disease is not fatal. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
So it's either angels are the same physiology as men, or you're not interested in the discussion. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I don't recall making anything up about the descriptions of angels, and, we're not discussing religion. jan.