Hi Joseppi,
I said
quote:
No, there's no magical forces, but gravity (whilst the weakest of the four known forces) certainly is powerful enough to pull planets together
and you said
The error is again quite obvious.
..oh do tell
quote:
Gravity is the weakest force known. It can't pull together any dispersed matter that has more powerful forces acting upon them.
well...yeah. no weaker force can resist a stronger force if the two are acting in an equivalent manner...
The most notable being HEAT.
The orbiting of the sun, the attraction of the planets is due to the lumped sum value of their constituent matter. and, that is not the situation before there were such clumps of matter.
A small question, of minor consequence...if we're talking about a primal solar system with no major clumps of matter...where's the sun?
And I presume you know how heat acts differently from gravity, yes? And that heat doesn't travel all that well in a vaccuum? and that heat could act as a catalyst for matter to start accumulating into "clumps" by pushing on some matter in the light but not on matter in the shade?
Basically, if heat were so powerful as to prevent gravity from attracting, then we wouldn't be here as our planet would have been blasted apart...
There is no known force by which one can explain the condensation of matter from a cloud into a clump.
sir isaac newton would disagree, for its name is gravity.
Heat alone will disperse the cloud as is common experience concerning any kind of cloud. The vector momentum of the particles after cooling will not change since the attraction between greatly dispersed particles is of no consequence.
clouds on a planet, in air, are a massively different thing from clouds in space in vaccuum. Don't forget, we're also talking about billions of years ago when the sun was not yet ignited.
If there is no sun to produce heat to prevent matter from falling together due to gravity, then why would it not occur?
You may say that the gravitational attraction between greatly dispersed particles is of no consequence, but you would be wrong. It took trillions of years to form our solar system, up against that scale our sun is a brief candle. Up against our sun, our planet is a newcomer. Up against our planet, life is a relatively modern occurence. Up against life itself, some 3 billion years ago, intelligent life has been around for the tiniest of moments. And your life - or mine? We don't even register on the scales you're trying to imagine.
Try to understand - gravity is
universal. Heat is local.
***
Edit: this shouldn't be in this thread as it is not directly about the OP. It's somewhat relevant though if you ponder how what we know of the universe doesn't relate to what's in the bible about the creation of the world.
The order (and there's two genesis tales) is all wrong in any event. You might claim that genesis isn't a scientific explanation of how it happened, and it's not, but are we to believe that Adam was a real person and not just some archetype?
If we don't believe that creation happened in either of the two ways (because it's not a word-for-word recital) then why should we believe Adam existed? and if we don't believe in Adam, we doubt the lineage (shaky as it is) which leads to Jesus. And if we doubt jesus' lineage, then who is he?
The whole thing falls apart like a house of cards. This is why some people have such a hard time with reality - the more specific they try to be about their faith, the easier it is to refute their claims. The more vague they are, the less relevance there is to modern-day life.
it's a lose-lose situation.
Edited by greyseal, : attempting to put it on topic a bit more.