Precision in Nature: Evidence of God or Accidents?

Nope, sorry, Pluto's not a planet.

@alter2egoI'm with subbie on the topic of "ignorance on display" here - and not only by alter2ego!I don't think much of that Thinkquest quote, can't you find a more authoritative source than one "by students for students" to learn from? The statement "Since the Sun is so massive, the planets can't move the Sun with their gravity and are forced to move around the Sun" is nonsense. While I can see what they're trying to say, any of my first-years putting that sort of rubbish down on paper would be asked to seriously reconsider his future as a scientist.Tell me, a2e, according to your understanding, if the Earth's "gravity" (presumably the magnitude of its gravitational field at the surface) was different from its current value, do you think that its orbit around the sun would be significantly different?Oh, and while you're at it, let's have your thoughts on how an attractive force can stop things from bashing into each other....Edited by fizz57102, : rewritten concluding statement

He he heDid you read what the ThinkQuest 'Team' consists of?

quote:

---

Team

​

LOMAX
Cicely Tyson School of Performing and Fine Arts, EAST ORANGE, NJ, United States

​

Ruel
Cicely Tyson School of Performing and Fine Arts, East Orange, NJ, United States

​

Age Range

​

19 & under

​

Coaches

​

Adrianne Surgeon
Cicely Tyson School of Performing and Fine Arts, Orange, NJ, United States

​

Category

​

History & Government > Disasters

---

Get it at http://www.thinkquest.org/pls/html/think.site?p_site_id=C...I guess that really does explain the 'knowledge' alter2ego thinks he has on the subject of 'why planets don't bump into each other'. He was serious when he provided that link!Tragic.Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

It is probably impossible to provide an argument that will convince you of your error. But let's try these.Do you understand that any object having of any mass having the same distance from the sun and velocity as Mars has at a point in Mars' orbit will travel in the essentially the same orbit. It is the sun's gravity that determines a planets orbit. A planet's weaker gravity in turn moves the sun a tiny bit. That tiny bit certainly does not explain why Jupiter is five times further away from the sun than Earth, while Mars is about 1.5 times further from the sun despite being less massive than earth/Did you notice when posting your data that Venus and Uranus had similar surface gravity (totally irrelevant), but yet Venus orbit is about 25 times smaller than that of Uranus? Yes, where 'not flying all over the place' would mean leaving the solar system on a straight line path.

quote:

---

NO NUKES:
It turns out that the behavior of atoms can be predicted from knowing a few masses and charges and some mathematics. All atoms are made up of the same basic particles (neutrons, protons, and electrons) and while some of these particles are themselves divisible, we don't need knowledge of those detals to be able to accurately predict the chemical properties of the atoms. The math accurately predicts the order and similarity of the properties of the elements.

---

ALTER2EGO -to- NO NUKES:
You are proving my point: that the elements on the Periodic Table are precise. They are so precise that their behavior is predictable.QUESTION #1 to NO NUKES: Where did the atoms, neutrons, protons, and electrons, come from, considering how predictable they are?QUESTION #2 to NO NUKES: Is it your position that the predictable atoms are the result of spontaneous events or accidents?QUESTION #3 to NO NUKES: Are you telling this forum that none of the elements on the Periodic Table are evidence of intelligent design?I will watch for your response to my questions.

No it isn't. If you don't know any physics, then this forum is a bad place to try making it up and bluffing, as many people round here are quite knowledgeable in this field.---Let's explain what does actually happen. I'll use Newtonian dynamics, since that's quite sufficient.The attractive force between two bodies of masses m₁ and m₂ is given by F = Gm₁m₂/r², where r is the distance between them and G is a constant.Now, according to Newton's second law, F = ma, or, rearranging, a = F/m: the acceleration of a body is the force acting on it divided by its mass.So putting these two formulas together, the acceleration of the body with mass m₁ will be given by a = Gm₁m₂/r²m₁. The m₁s on the top and the bottom of the right-hand side of this equation cancel, giving us:a = Gm₂/r2

​

So the mass m₁ is irrelevant to the motion of the body with mass m₁.

​

This is, or course, why Galileo was right: if the force of air friction is negligible, a light and a heavy body dropped at the same time from the same place will undergo the same acceleration.

​

It also means that the motion of a body in orbit will be determined by its position, its velocity, and the mass of the body it's orbiting. Its own mass doesn't come into it.

​

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

It would appear that our new poster in this thread believes that painting the bull's eye around the arrow indicates accuracy.

No I am not. In fact the idea that elements are precise has absolutely no meaning.What is the case is that when the elements are placed in order by their atomic number, which is simply a count of the number of protons in each atom, we can discern some gross patterns in chemical behavior. However these patterns, and some less evident ones are infinitely predictable by knowing a relativity small set of information about protons, electrons.Where in that does anything regarding some divine precision enter? Your question is inane and make no sense. You are misusing the terms accident and precise in ways that do not promote communication. I'm telling you that. The periodic table demonstrates order, but the source of that order is well known. The order results from a rather small number of properties of protons, neutrons, and electrons. (mass, charge, spin, etc.).Your conclusion is that Order = Design. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

quote:

---

NO NUKES:
Do you understand that any object having of any mass having the same distance from the sun and velocity as Mars has at a point in Mars' orbit will travel in the essentially the same orbit. It is the sun's gravity that determines a planets orbit. A planet's weaker gravity in turn moves the sun a tiny bit. That tiny bit certainly does not explain why Jupiter is five times further away from the sun than Earth, while Mars is about 1.5 times further from the sun despite being less massive than earth/

---

ALTER2EGO -to- NO NUKES:
Do you understand that you and I are talking about two different things?1. I was rebutting subbie who claimed at Post #4 that the individual field of gravity of each planet does not play a role in keeping planets within their orbit and away from each other.2. You are talking only about how the sun's gravity affects the other planets in our solar system and causes them to revolve around it.You ignore the fact that each planet has its own field of gravity, which prevents each of them from being removed from their orbital path around the sun. If the sun's gravity was the only deciding factor, the sun would have long since pulled the other planets into itself because the sun has a stronger gravitational field and gravity causes planets to pull inwards. This is confirmed by the following source:

quote:

---

Orbital Speed
The mass formula above tells you that satellites orbiting massive planets must move faster than satellites orbiting low-mass planets at the same distance. 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. Of course, this also applies to planets orbiting stars, stars orbiting other stars, etc.

---

Gravity ApplicationsClick the weblink below, and you will notice that each planet is on a different orbital path around the sun.
File:Solar sys8.jpg - Wikimedia CommonsBTW: I notice you evaded all three of the questions I asked you. I need not wonder why.

How funny!Yes, the formula for universal gravitation includes the mass of both bodies, but when one body is so much more massive than the other, the effects of its mass are negligible.And you might want to try to understand what that quote you gave says. Note that nowhere does it say that the mass of the satellites themselves come into play.Do the math! Show us this great difference you think that the planet's mass makes. Be very specific.

Try reading post #22. It has math and everything.

quote:

---

HUNTARD:
Nope, sorry, Pluto's not a planet.

---

ALTER2EGO -to- HUNTARD:
Pluto is very much a planet. It was reclassified as a "dwarf planet", but it is a planet just the same.

quote:

---

What Is Pluto?

​

Today, Pluto is called a "dwarf planet." A dwarf planet orbits the sun just like other planets, but it is smaller. A dwarf planet is so small it cannot clear other objects out of its path.

---

What Is Pluto? | NASA QUESTION #1 to HUNTARD: What does the expression "just like other planets" indicate about dwarf planets such as Pluto?

So, according to your 'logic', we've got at least ten planets then. Eris being one of those.New Planet

If it was still a planet, it would be called a planet. Words have meanings, you know. That they exhibit some similar characteristics as planets. This apparently has confused you into thinking they are completely similar. Which they aren't as your quote clearly states.Besides, if you want to include dwarfplanets as normal planets, your original quote would still be wrong, as it says there are nine planets, but if we count the dwarfplanets as planets as well, there would be 13. So take your pick, either way, the quote is wrong.