Not only was your original claim that the Earth's orbit produces the seasons incorrect, not only is your second attempt that "both orbit & tilt combined produce the earth's seasons in the northern hemisphere" incorrect, but even the link you cited contradicts you:
Your link writes:
An elliptical orbit causes the Earth's distance from the Sun to vary over a year. Yet, this phenomenon is not responsible for the Earth’s seasons! ... Note that the angle of the Earth's axis in relation to the ecliptic plane and the North Star on these four dates remains unchanged. Yet, the relative position of the Earth's axis to the Sun does change during this cycle. This circumstance is responsible for the annual changes in the height of the Sun above the horizon. It also causes the seasons, by controlling the intensity and duration of sunlight received by locations on the Earth. ... Note how the position of the North Pole on the Earth's surface does not change. However, its position relative to the Sun does change and this shift is responsible for the seasons.
You can see that your link states in three different places in three different ways how the Earth's tilt is responsible for the seasons. If you're trying to make sense about why this should be so, consider that (as your link also states) that the amount of sunlight arriving on the Earth varies by only about 6% during the year due to changes in distance, but the length of the day and the angle of the sun vary far more dramatically and hence have a much larger impact, and this is the result of tilt. In the summer the length of the day becomes much longer, 24 hours long as you approach the poles. The sun is not only in the sky for a longer period, but it is higher in the sky and beats more directly downward. And of course the reverse is true in winter, with the days becoming shorter and eventually disappearing altogether as you approach the poles, and the sun sits very low in the sky and only strikes obliquely.
John 10:10 writes:
I corrected my error concering % of the universe that is unfit for life as we know it, but some did not catch this. I meant much much larger in the smaller direction; i.e., the % of the universe that is unfit for life as we know it is much much smaller than 0.001%.
I see. So when you say larger you actually mean smaller. So since you still have this backwards, should we also assume that when you say "unfit" you actually mean "fit"?
Some believe a Divine Tailor was very inefficient in designing a universe with so much matter & energy waste in it as they interpret waste. But when one does not learn the why, one will always be lost in trying to figure out the how, or in demanding that we who know our Divine Tailor provide acceptable proof to those who have no desire to know the truth.
Stop pretending to speak for your Divine Tailor. You have no more idea of his ways than you do of the seasons or math or fitness for life. Congratulations for composing an entire post without making one correct statement. You're obviously an acolyte of Buzsaw in the way you make errors and then have to spend the rest of a thread trying to explain them away. Can you explain to me again how you've decided in your mind that you can be wrong in all the details while being right in your conclusions?
--Percy
I recognize I have to be very precise when saying things at this forum.
Yes, the earth's tilt is responsible for the earth's seasons. But if the earth did not orbit around the sun at a not too cold or hot distance, with slight changes in the position of the earth's tilt as it relates to the sun, tilt alone would not cause the seasons.
Yes, I should have said fit instead of unfit. The bottom line is that that only place we know of in the entire universe that is fit for life as we know it is planet earth.
I may not know as much about science as you know, but I do know the Divine Tailor is the author of the details you seem to be so knowledgable about. For Him I do speak.
Re: Both orbit around the sun and tilt combined produce the earth's seasons
Yes, the earth's tilt is responsible for the earth's seasons. But if the earth did not orbit around the sun at a not too cold or hot distance, with slight changes in the position of the earth's tilt as it relates to the sun, tilt alone would not cause the seasons.
You are aware that the earth is closest to the sun on January 3, right?
Yes, tilt alone is sufficient to cause the seasons.
I may not know as much about science as you know, but I do know the Divine Tailor is the author of the details you seem to be so knowledgable about. For Him I do speak.
Then you should be sure you speak accurately. Basic errors in 7th grade science do not impress us, especially if you claim to be speaking for a deity.
(See tagline.)
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Re: Both orbit around the sun and tilt combined produce the earth's seasons
John 10:10 writes:
I may not know as much about science as you know, but I do know the Divine Tailor is the author of the details you seem to be so knowledgable about. For Him I do speak.
So the Divine Tailor doesn't know as much science as me, either? Wow! Who woulda' thought!
Look, John, if the Divine Tailor is giving you wrong information about some things, how do you know he's giving you correct information about anything?
The question is rhetorical. This is a science thread. Could you please stick to the science?
Ok please tell me what the orbit of earth has to do with this topic as started in the first post?? The seasons and why they happen is at best middle school science. It isn't even worthy of so much discussion. Many things effect climate, ocean currents, amount of ice reflecting energy ect...Seasons are a product of earths tilt, which also changes. You might as well try to say that it is all a product of the solar cycle and has nothing to do with tilt. As I see it all these things effect one another...But it has nothing to do with the creation of matter.
Re: Both orbit around the sun and tilt combined produce the earth's seasons
I must respond to the statement that you speak for the divine tailor. What do you mean??? You are a profit of god?? Do you speak for....or about the divine tailor?? I am confused so please clarify what you mean. As I understand it nobody speaks for god, god might speak through you. Is that what you suggest? I suspect you mean you speak of the divine tailor, not for him.
Re: Both orbit around the sun and tilt combined produce the earth's seasons
John 10:10 writes:
I recognize I have to be very precise when saying things at this forum.
Any time you're talking philosophy or science, this is the case. How long did it take you to realize it?
Yes, I should have said fit instead of unfit. The bottom line is that that only place we know of in the entire universe that is fit for life as we know it is planet earth.
And this might mean something... if we already knew that Earth was the only place in the entire universe that harbored life. The crucial point is that we know so little about other places in the universe that we shouldn't overstate the rarity of life.
But since you mention life as we know it... what if we found (not even necessarily) intelligent life elsewhere with a different chemical basis? Your statement would still be correct, but I presume your motive for stating it would have evaporated.
I may not know as much about science as you know, but I do know the Divine Tailor is the author of the details you seem to be so knowledgable about. For Him I do speak.
You say you know this. I would like to know how you came to acquire this knowledge. That is, by what method do you discern truths from falsities, facts from mere imaginings? When you make a proposition, is there an observable (not only through sight, mind you) test for determining whether it is false or possibly true?
Furthermore, regarding your final claim, how could an observer of your behavior and speech tell you apart from people with certain mental health problems?
Re: Both orbit around the sun and tilt combined produce the earth's seasons
Yes, the earth's tilt is responsible for the earth's seasons. But if the earth did not orbit around the sun at a not too cold or hot distance, with slight changes in the position of the earth's tilt as it relates to the sun, tilt alone would not cause the seasons.
Yes it would the earth could be as far away as Jupiter and on a perfectly circular axis and we would still have seasons, as long as it was tilted. Sure the seasons would be winter grater winter greatest winter lesser winter.
the earth is closest to the sun on January the 3d, winter time on the northern hemisphere why because the tilt of the earth causes the suns rays to fall at a very shallow angle not causing the same warmth if they would fall at a straight angle.
I recognize I have to be very precise when saying things at this forum.
Yes, I should have said fit instead of unfit. The bottom line is that that only place we know of in the entire universe that is fit for life as we know it is planet earth.
You should have, but apparently you just cannot bring yourself to type what you really meant.
The reasons you've been hounded to make a correct statement is that this "bottom line" undercuts your overall argument. You argue that our universe has the perfect fundamental constants for sustaining life as we know it despite the fact that all but an incredibly tiny portion of said universe is hostile to life.
Further, we haven't advanced one iota towards the idea advanced in your original post, namely that the mullti-verse explanation for a fine-tuned universe is silly compared to a single, tailor made universe.
If you've got a point to make other than expressions of your own incredulity, I sure wish you'd get to it. There is plenty of discussion of this stuff on the internet. Perhaps Hugh Ross' book Fine-Tuning the Case for Fine-Tuning: a Cosmic Breakthrough might give you some better material than you've used here.
The whole purpose of my original post back in 187 was to show the bias the reviewer has in saying the laws of physics as we know them somehow lend themselves to an off-the-peg universe, rather than to a unique Tailor-made universe. This bias also runs very deep at this forum as well.
Since ya'll have challenged me over and over again on my lack of scientific knowledge, please answer my original question:
How do laws of physics as we know them somehow lend themselves to an off-the-peg universe, rather than to a unique Tailor-made universe?
How do laws of physics as we know them somehow lend themselves to an off-the-peg universe, rather than to a unique Tailor-made universe?
At this point, they are indistinguishable. Without knowing how many universes there are it is impossible to tell the difference between a tailor made universe and an off the peg universe.
How do laws of physics as we know them somehow lend themselves to an off-the-peg universe, rather than to a unique Tailor-made universe?
Hopefully the answers you received mentioned that we have insufficient evidence to choose between these two possibilities. The evidence we have does not allow us to exclude either one.
I'm wondering if you haven't misunderstand what people have been trying to tell you. They aren't saying the evidence indicates many universes. They're simply pointing out that it's one of the possibilities consistent with the evidence we have at this time and that it would be wrong to exclude it. Legitimate arguments can be mustered for either alternative, and there's no evidence at this time indicating either one is wrong.
But if we were being parochial when we thought there was only one planet, and then only one solar system, and then only one galaxy, and then only one universe, are we perhaps still being parocahial in thinking that there may be only one multiverse?
™ Version 4.2
