Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 113 (8749 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 05-26-2017 3:04 PM
116 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Roshankumar1234
Post Volume:
Total: 809,069 Year: 13,675/21,208 Month: 3,157/3,605 Week: 499/933 Day: 37/51 Hour: 0/0

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev123
4
56Next
Author Topic:   Precision in Nature: Evidence of God or Accidents?
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9547
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 46 of 77 (696056)
04-11-2013 2:49 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by Alter2Ego
04-11-2013 12:30 PM


Re: Precision in Nature: Evidence of God or Accidents?
You are the only person between us two who thinks that to be the case. If the other planets did not have their own field of gravity, the sun would have been able to suck them in. That's what you will never admit because you have a difficult time admitting you are in error.

I suppose it is true that I am the only one of the two of us who agrees with me. I'll also state that I don't find it particularly difficult to admit error.

I am going to make a request that may be out of the ordinary for a forum in which I am suppose to supply my own arguments. But I understand that you will not trust me despite the fact that I am far more knowledgable on this subject than you.

Please perform a google search using 'Why do planets orbit the sun'. When I tried the search myself, I turned up plenty of correct answers. I'll provide you with a link to one of them, but I encourage you to find an answer on your own. Please ignore any hits you get that point to your own, er answers.

The most simple answers I found were these:

The gravity of the sun keeps the planets in their orbits. The stay in their orbits because there is no other force in the solar system which can stop them.

More than 99 percent of all the mass in the solar system is in the Sun. The gravitational pull of this huge mass causes planets and most other objects in the solar system to move around, or orbit, the Sun.

But please feel free to report on what you find.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I would say here something that was heard from an ecclesiastic of the most eminent degree; ‘That the intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how the heaven goes.’ Galileo Galilei 1615.

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Alter2Ego, posted 04-11-2013 12:30 PM Alter2Ego has not yet responded

    
Taq
Member
Posts: 6461
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 47 of 77 (696057)
04-11-2013 2:59 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by NoNukes
04-11-2013 2:13 PM


Re: Precision in Nature: Evidence of God or Accidents?

Short summary: The mass of the planet determines the speed of the satellite (and of course other aspects of the satellite's orbit).

What the statement does NOT say is that more massive satellites move faster or slower or in different orbits than less massive satellites. I believe that misconception to be the source of your error.

Now when we consider the solar system in light of our (new??) understanding of the quote, we see that for the solar system the SUN takes the place in the quote of the massive planet while the PLANETS, because they orbit the SUN, take the place of the satellites.

So substitute SUN for 'massive planet' and PLANETS for 'satellites' in your quote and observe the result. In this case, there is no substitute for 'lesser mass planet' in the quote because there is no second SUN for the planets to orbit. But we can say that if we considered planets orbiting the massive star Betelguese, that the quote accurately suggests that such planets would have to move faster their orbits that would planets a similar distance from our sun Sol.

Or to put it in simpler terms, the centripetal force created by the circular orbit must equal the force of gravity that is acting in the opposite direction. Gravity increases with the mass of the star, and decreases with distance.

Just think of how your hot wheel cars are able to go around the loop and stay stuck to the track.

Edited by Taq, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by NoNukes, posted 04-11-2013 2:13 PM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

  
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9547
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 48 of 77 (696058)
04-11-2013 3:06 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Alter2Ego
04-11-2013 10:29 AM


Re: Precision in Nature: Evidence of God or Accidents?
As you can see, NASA, the last source I quoted, used the expression "just like other planets" when describing Pluto. That can only mean one thing: Pluto is indeed a planet.

Did you also read further done on the same web page the explanation of why Pluto is not called a planet anymore? What did you make of that?


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I would say here something that was heard from an ecclesiastic of the most eminent degree; ‘That the intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how the heaven goes.’ Galileo Galilei 1615.

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Alter2Ego, posted 04-11-2013 10:29 AM Alter2Ego has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Alter2Ego, posted 04-11-2013 3:52 PM NoNukes has responded

    
Alter2Ego
Member (Idle past 1231 days)
Posts: 72
From: Los Angeles, California
Joined: 04-06-2013


Message 49 of 77 (696062)
04-11-2013 3:52 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by NoNukes
04-11-2013 3:06 PM


Re: Precision in Nature: Evidence of God or Accidents?
quote:
ALTER2EGO:
As you can see, NASA, the last source I quoted, used the expression "just like other planets" when describing Pluto. That can only mean one thing: Pluto is indeed a planet.

NO NUKES:
Did you also read further done on the same web page the explanation of why Pluto is not called a planet anymore? What did you make of that?



ALTER2EGO -to- NO NUKES:
Yes, I read all that. And as I previously stated, a "dwarf planet" is still by definition a planet. In 1930, Pluto was accepted as a planet. Then in 2006, the International Astronomical Union decided that a new system of classification was needed to describe what is to be referred to as "planet.' In other words, it's nothing but a game of semantics--which I will not play.

http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/planets/profile.cfm?Object=Dwarf


"That people may know that you, whose name is JEHOVAH, you alone are the Most High over all the earth." (Psalms 83:18)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by NoNukes, posted 04-11-2013 3:06 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Taq, posted 04-11-2013 4:27 PM Alter2Ego has not yet responded
 Message 57 by NoNukes, posted 04-11-2013 8:40 PM Alter2Ego has not yet responded

  
Alter2Ego
Member (Idle past 1231 days)
Posts: 72
From: Los Angeles, California
Joined: 04-06-2013


Message 50 of 77 (696064)
04-11-2013 4:25 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by NoNukes
04-11-2013 2:13 PM


Re: Precision in Nature: Evidence of God or Accidents?
quote:
NO NUKES:
Since you have your finger directly on the issue, I'll make another attempt to explain. I will quote here only the two sentences that you are misinterpreting. My own emphasis added.
quote:
Massive planets have stronger gravity than low-mass planets so a satellite orbiting a massive planet is accelerated by a greater amount than one going around a lesser mass planet at the same distance. To balance the stronger inward gravitational pull of the massive planet, the satellite must move faster in its orbit than if it was orbiting a lesser mass planet

The two quoted sentences explicitly say that a more massive planet causes a satellite orbiting the more massive planet to go faster than the satellite would go if were orbiting a smaller planet. Note that no mention is made of the mass of the satellite. That's because the mass of the satellite, as long as it is small compared to the planet, is irrelevant.

ALTER2EGO -to- NO NUKES:
Notice the portion within the above quotation that I bolded in light green. The source also says that the satellite "must move faster in its orbit," indicating that the satellite's own gravitational forces are a contributing factor and that the more massive planet is not the only reason why the smaller planet speeds up. That's the point I've been making. To hear you tell it, the more massive planet is the only deciding factor in all this interplay of planet movements.

If anything, the examination of planets and their reaction to each other's field of gravity proves the point of this thread: that there is precision in the natural world and that precision cannot result by accidental means.


"That people may know that you, whose name is JEHOVAH, you alone are the Most High over all the earth." (Psalms 83:18)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by NoNukes, posted 04-11-2013 2:13 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Taq, posted 04-11-2013 4:33 PM Alter2Ego has not yet responded
 Message 53 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-11-2013 4:43 PM Alter2Ego has not yet responded
 Message 55 by NoNukes, posted 04-11-2013 6:38 PM Alter2Ego has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 6461
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 51 of 77 (696065)
04-11-2013 4:27 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by Alter2Ego
04-11-2013 3:52 PM


Re: Precision in Nature: Evidence of God or Accidents?
Yes, I read all that. And as I previously stated, a "dwarf planet" is still by definition a planet.

No, it isn't. A dwarf planet is a dwarf planet. A planet is a planet. They are two different things.

Even worse, your definition of planet is simply something that orbits the sun which would make all of the comets and asteroids planets as well, so we actually have millions of planets in the solar system according to your redefinition of planet.

Edited by Taq, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Alter2Ego, posted 04-11-2013 3:52 PM Alter2Ego has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 6461
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 52 of 77 (696066)
04-11-2013 4:33 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by Alter2Ego
04-11-2013 4:25 PM


Re: Precision in Nature: Evidence of God or Accidents?
The source also says that the satellite "must move faster in its orbit," indicating that the satellite's own gravitational forces are a contributing factor

When the difference in mass is very large the satellite has very little effect. If the satellite is large then the larger mass will noticebly wobble because both bodies are orbitting around their shared barycenter. A see-saw is a good analogy.

Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

Edited by Taq, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Alter2Ego, posted 04-11-2013 4:25 PM Alter2Ego has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15929
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 53 of 77 (696068)
04-11-2013 4:43 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by Alter2Ego
04-11-2013 4:25 PM


Re: Precision in Nature: Evidence of God or Accidents?
Notice the portion within the above quotation that I bolded in light green. The source also says that the satellite "must move faster in its orbit," indicating that the satellite's own gravitational forces are a contributing factor ...

That is not what it indicates. Stop making stuff up. Either read your own sources until you understand them or read post #22 until you understand that.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Alter2Ego, posted 04-11-2013 4:25 PM Alter2Ego has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15929
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 54 of 77 (696070)
04-11-2013 4:47 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by Alter2Ego
04-11-2013 12:30 PM


Re: Precision in Nature: Evidence of God or Accidents?
You are the only person between us two who thinks that to be the case. If the other planets did not have their own field of gravity, the sun would have been able to suck them in. That's what you will never admit because you have a difficult time admitting you are in error.

Well, let me provide a third vote. You are talking ridiculous nonsense about a subject which you have obviously never even tried to understand.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Alter2Ego, posted 04-11-2013 12:30 PM Alter2Ego has not yet responded

  
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9547
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 55 of 77 (696081)
04-11-2013 6:38 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by Alter2Ego
04-11-2013 4:25 PM


Re: Precision in Nature: Evidence of God or Accidents?
Notice the portion within the above quotation that I bolded in light green. The source also says that the satellite "must move faster in its orbit," indicating that the satellite's own gravitational forces are a contributing factor and that the more massive planet is not the only reason why the smaller planet speeds up.

Now you are just making things up. The satellite must move faster. Yes the source does say that.

On the other hand, "the sources own gravitational forces are a contributing factor" is something you made up out of whole cloth. It is not part of the source and it is not implied by the source. What the source DOES say is that the mass of the body that the satellite orbits does matter. It is completely silent about any other effect.

Let me provide an example of the behavior I'm describing. Imagine a space ship orbiting the earth and performing a docking operation with the International Space Station. Despite the fact that the space ship is only a fraction of the size of the space station, all that is necessary for the space ship to match the orbit of the space station is for the space ship to match the velocity and position of the space station. Once that is done the space ship and the space station will stay in matching orbits.

Were your proposal to be correct, it would be impossible for two objects having different masses to match orbits even around the same massive body. Yet we both know that this 'impossible' task is routinely done.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I would say here something that was heard from an ecclesiastic of the most eminent degree; ‘That the intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how the heaven goes.’ Galileo Galilei 1615.

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Alter2Ego, posted 04-11-2013 4:25 PM Alter2Ego has not yet responded

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9547
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 56 of 77 (696085)
04-11-2013 7:23 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by New Cat's Eye
04-11-2013 12:53 PM


Re: Precision in Nature: Evidence of God or Accidents?
Is English not your first language?

Is this Alter2Ego's first universe?


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I would say here something that was heard from an ecclesiastic of the most eminent degree; ‘That the intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how the heaven goes.’ Galileo Galilei 1615.

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-11-2013 12:53 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-11-2013 8:52 PM NoNukes has responded

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9547
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 57 of 77 (696088)
04-11-2013 8:40 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by Alter2Ego
04-11-2013 3:52 PM


Re: Precision in Nature: Evidence of God or Accidents?
Then in 2006, the International Astronomical Union decided that a new system of classification was needed to describe what is to be referred to as "planet.' In other words, it's nothing but a game of semantics--which I will not play.

What you are calling semantics is what astronomers would call using correct scientific terminology. If you simply refuse to use that terminology, then that does indeed end part of the discussion.

The problem for you is that you there is no reasonable definition of planet that results in a count of nine for the solar system and you have stated that there are nine planets. Using your definition, how do you classify Ceres, Pluto, Haumea, Makemake, and Eris. Eris is larger than Pluto and has a moon to boot.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I would say here something that was heard from an ecclesiastic of the most eminent degree; ‘That the intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how the heaven goes.’ Galileo Galilei 1615.

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Alter2Ego, posted 04-11-2013 3:52 PM Alter2Ego has not yet responded

    
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11348
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 58 of 77 (696090)
04-11-2013 8:52 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by NoNukes
04-11-2013 7:23 PM


Re: Precision in Nature: Evidence of God or Accidents?
Is English not your first language?

Is this Alter2Ego's first universe?

Of course it is. He very well could be trolling, but if he's having trouble understanding English then that would also make sense.

But obviously, what he says his quotes are saying is not what they are actually saying... so something's wrong.

Meh, maybe he's young.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by NoNukes, posted 04-11-2013 7:23 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by NoNukes, posted 04-11-2013 9:13 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9547
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 59 of 77 (696093)
04-11-2013 9:13 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by New Cat's Eye
04-11-2013 8:52 PM


Re: Precision in Nature: Evidence of God or Accidents?
Of course it is. He very well could be trolling, but if he's having trouble understanding English then that would also make sense.

But obviously, what he says his quotes are saying is not what they are actually saying... so something's wrong.

It could be that Alter2Ego sees what he/she expects to see.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I would say here something that was heard from an ecclesiastic of the most eminent degree; ‘That the intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how the heaven goes.’ Galileo Galilei 1615.

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-11-2013 8:52 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-12-2013 12:12 PM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

    
Alter2Ego
Member (Idle past 1231 days)
Posts: 72
From: Los Angeles, California
Joined: 04-06-2013


Message 60 of 77 (696101)
04-11-2013 10:46 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by NoNukes
04-11-2013 10:04 AM


Re: Precision in Nature: Evidence of God or Accidents?
quote:
NO NUKES:
You don't trust anyone here, so if there is any person offline you can trust, who knows even a little about astronomy, I suggest that you ask them about your statement above. But you are beyond my help. I'll take whatever suspension this comment has earned, but you are an absolute buffoon.

Hmm.... That has a familiar ring. It rhymes with sore loser. You know, buffoon and lose. I hear stuff like that wherever I debate people who can't accept defeat gracefully.

"That people may know that you, whose name is JEHOVAH, you alone are the Most High over all the earth." (Psalms 83:18)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by NoNukes, posted 04-11-2013 10:04 AM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by NoNukes, posted 04-11-2013 11:11 PM Alter2Ego has not yet responded

  
Prev123
4
56Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017