Understanding through Discussion

QuickSearch

 Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ] EvC Forum active members: 64 (9057 total)
 455 online now: jar, kjsimons, PaulK, Percy (Admin) (4 members, 451 visitors) Newest Member: drlove Post Volume: Total: 889,840 Year: 952/6,534 Month: 952/682 Week: 5/182 Day: 5/27 Hour: 2/1

EvC Forum Science Forums Intelligent Design

# Precision in Nature: Evidence of God or Accidents?

Author Topic:   Precision in Nature: Evidence of God or Accidents?
Percy
Member
Posts: 20503
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 8.3

 Message 31 of 77 (696021) 04-11-2013 7:28 AM Reply to: Message 15 by Alter2Ego04-09-2013 3:48 AM

Two objects coming nearer to each other through space will have a mutual gravitational attraction. Given their masses and velocity vectors one can calculate the required escape and orbital velocities. Assuming they are not on an actual collision course, if their velocities exceed the escape velocities then the objects will pass by each other and never meet again. If their velocities exceed the orbital velocities but not the escape velocities then they will orbit each other. And if their velocities are below the orbital velocities then they will collide.

AbE: Moons and planets without dense atmospheres or plate tectonics are a record of past collisions, for example, Mercury and our own moon.

--Percy

Edited by Percy, : AbE.

 This message is a reply to: Message 15 by Alter2Ego, posted 04-09-2013 3:48 AM Alter2Ego has not yet responded

subbie
Member (Idle past 369 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006

 Message 32 of 77 (696025) 04-11-2013 9:44 AM Reply to: Message 25 by Alter2Ego04-11-2013 1:50 AM

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

No, you weren't. You were trying to rebut what I said, but so far you have failed miserably. If you continue to try, you will continue to fail miserably because you are simply wrong. The gravity of a planet plays no part in keeping it in its orbit.

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

Howling about evidence is a conversation stopper, and it never stops to think if the claim could possibly be true -- foreveryoung

 This message is a reply to: Message 25 by Alter2Ego, posted 04-11-2013 1:50 AM Alter2Ego has not yet responded

NoNukes
Inactive Member

 (2)
 Message 33 of 77 (696026) 04-11-2013 10:04 AM Reply to: Message 25 by Alter2Ego04-11-2013 1:50 AM

Re: Precision in Nature: Evidence of God or Accidents?
You provided the following quote. I added some emphasis

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.

Do you understand that your quote demonstrates my point and not yours.

The subject matter of the statement above is satellites orbiting planets. The quote says that in that case the mass of the planet and not the mass of the satellite determines the orbital speed.

Now consider the solar system. In that case, the sun is serving the position of massive planets in your quote, while the planets are satellites orbiting the sun. So which mass would the principle of your quote say determines the orbit of the planets (satellites)? The sun and not the planets. In fact, the last sentence of your quote says exactly that.

 BTW: I notice you evaded all three of the questions I asked you. I need not wonder why.

I did not evade your questions. I do not believe I have the ability to convince you of too much because of your lack of knowledge about the topic. I have no illusion that you will be able to understand either the explanation I've just given you or the one that Dr. Adequate offered.

 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.

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.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

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 25 by Alter2Ego, posted 04-11-2013 1:50 AM Alter2Ego has responded

 Replies to this message: Message 39 by Alter2Ego, posted 04-11-2013 12:30 PM NoNukes has responded Message 40 by Alter2Ego, posted 04-11-2013 12:32 PM NoNukes has responded Message 60 by Alter2Ego, posted 04-11-2013 10:46 PM NoNukes has responded

Alter2Ego
Member (Idle past 2934 days)
Posts: 72
From: Los Angeles, California
Joined: 04-06-2013

 Message 34 of 77 (696028) 04-11-2013 10:29 AM Reply to: Message 30 by Huntard04-11-2013 6:14 AM

Re: Precision in Nature: Evidence of God or Accidents?
quote:
ALTER2EGO -to- HUNTARD:
Pluto is very much a planet. It was reclassified as a "dwarf planet", but it is a planet just the same.

HUNTARD
If it was still a planet, it would be called a planet. Words have meanings, you know.

ALTER2EGO -to- HUNTARD:
Of course words have meaning. And the last source I quoted said Pluto is a "dwarf planet.' Remove the word "dwarf" and what are you left with?

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

HUNTARD
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.

ALTER2EGO -to- HUNTARD:
The confusion is yours. That's what happens when one decides to play along with the game of semantics that those in the scientific community tend to play.

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.
http://www.nasa.gov/...nts/k-4/stories/what-is-pluto-k4.html

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.

quote:
HUNTARD
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.

ALTER2EGO -to- HUNTARD:
The first source I quoted was referring to the largest among the 13 when it said there are 9 planets in our solar system, obviously. The routine of the scientific community is to exclude the smaller planets aka dwarf planets during the count. Somewhere down the road, they may discover even smaller planets, at which point, they might decide to play more games of semantics with the word "planet." In any event, the argument over what is a "planet" does not have any effect on the point of this thread: that precision in nature is evidence of intelligent design.

"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 30 by Huntard, posted 04-11-2013 6:14 AM Huntard has responded

 Replies to this message: Message 35 by Huntard, posted 04-11-2013 10:42 AM Alter2Ego has not yet responded Message 36 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-11-2013 10:44 AM Alter2Ego has not yet responded Message 37 by 1.61803, posted 04-11-2013 10:47 AM Alter2Ego has not yet responded Message 43 by Percy, posted 04-11-2013 1:19 PM Alter2Ego has not yet responded Message 48 by NoNukes, posted 04-11-2013 3:06 PM Alter2Ego has responded

Huntard
Member (Idle past 1410 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008

 Message 35 of 77 (696030) 04-11-2013 10:42 AM Reply to: Message 34 by Alter2Ego04-11-2013 10:29 AM

Re: Precision in Nature: Evidence of God or Accidents?
 Alter2Ego writes:ALTER2EGO -to- HUNTARD:Of course words have meaning. And the last source I quoted said Pluto is a "dwarf planet.' Remove the word "dwarf" and what are you left with?

Why would we remove the designation "dwarf", other then to fulffil your misconception that Pluto is a planet?

 ALTER2EGO -to- HUNTARD:The confusion is yours. That's what happens when one decides to play along with the game of semantics that those in the scientific community tend to play.

Since Pluto is in fact a dwarfplanet and not a regular planet, I'm not the one who is confused.

 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. As I explained to you, it means that it exhibits similar characteristics as planets. As you can read in your own quote, the difference between a dwarfplanet and a planet is that "A dwarf planet is so small it cannot clear other objects out of its path".

 The first source I quoted was referring to the largest among the 13 when it said there are 9 planets in our solar system, obviously.

If they had done that they would've mentioned Eris, not Pluto (since Eris is bigger). So your quote is still wrong.

 The routine of the scientific community is to exclude the smaller planets aka dwarf planets during the count.

That's something you've made up, because the routine when counting planets is counting planets, as well as wrong. It would've been Eris then.

 Somewhere down the road, they may discover even smaller planets, at which point, they might decide to play more games of semantics with the word "planet."

They are not semantics, but important distinctions. Science changes to become ever more accurate.

 In any event, the argument over what is a "planet" does not have any effect on the point of this thread: that precision in nature is evidence of intelligent design.

No, it does, however, demonstrate that your sources can't even get the simplest things right. Why should we trust them on anything at all then?

 This message is a reply to: Message 34 by Alter2Ego, posted 04-11-2013 10:29 AM Alter2Ego has not yet responded

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member

 Message 36 of 77 (696032) 04-11-2013 10:44 AM Reply to: Message 34 by Alter2Ego04-11-2013 10:29 AM

Re: Precision in Nature: Evidence of God or Accidents?
 precision in nature is evidence of intelligent design.

How is precision in nature evidence of intelligent design?

 This message is a reply to: Message 34 by Alter2Ego, posted 04-11-2013 10:29 AM Alter2Ego has not yet responded

1.61803
Member (Idle past 618 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004

 Message 37 of 77 (696034) 04-11-2013 10:47 AM Reply to: Message 34 by Alter2Ego04-11-2013 10:29 AM

Re: Precision in Nature: Evidence of God or Accidents?
 Alter2Ego writes:Pluto is indeed a planet.

Ummm, what part of you are WRONG do you not
understand

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dwarf_planet

Edited by 1.61803, : fix link

"You were not there for the beginning. You will not be there for the end. Your knowledge of what is going on can only be superficial and relative" William S. Burroughs

 This message is a reply to: Message 34 by Alter2Ego, posted 04-11-2013 10:29 AM Alter2Ego has not yet responded

Taq
Member (Idle past 86 days)
Posts: 8488
Joined: 03-06-2009

 Message 38 of 77 (696036) 04-11-2013 11:19 AM Reply to: Message 29 by Pressie04-11-2013 4:11 AM

Re: Eris the tenth planet
 So, according to your 'logic', we've got at least ten planets then. Eris being one of those.

Much more than that. It would appear that the single characteristic a "planet" needs is to orbit the Sun, so we have hundreds of thousands of planets, perhaps even millions, and that is just in the asteroid belt.

 This message is a reply to: Message 29 by Pressie, posted 04-11-2013 4:11 AM Pressie has not yet responded

Alter2Ego
Member (Idle past 2934 days)
Posts: 72
From: Los Angeles, California
Joined: 04-06-2013

 Message 39 of 77 (696043) 04-11-2013 12:30 PM Reply to: Message 33 by NoNukes04-11-2013 10:04 AM

Re: Precision in Nature: Evidence of God or Accidents?
quote:
NO NUKES:
You provided the following quote. I added some emphasis

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."

Do you understand that your quote demonstrates my point and not yours.

ALTER2EGO -to- NO NUKES:
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.

"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 42 by Taq, posted 04-11-2013 1:18 PM Alter2Ego has not yet responded Message 46 by NoNukes, posted 04-11-2013 2:49 PM Alter2Ego has not yet responded Message 54 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-11-2013 4:47 PM Alter2Ego has not yet responded

Alter2Ego
Member (Idle past 2934 days)
Posts: 72
From: Los Angeles, California
Joined: 04-06-2013

 Message 40 of 77 (696044) 04-11-2013 12:32 PM Reply to: Message 33 by NoNukes04-11-2013 10:04 AM

Re: Precision in Nature: Evidence of God or Accidents?
quote:
NO NUKES:
The subject matter of the statement above is satellites orbiting planets. The quote says that in that case the mass of the planet and not the mass of the satellite determines the orbital speed.

Now consider the solar system. In that case, the sun is serving the position of massive planets in your quote, while the planets are satellites orbiting the sun. So which mass would the principle of your quote say determines the orbit of the planets (satellites)? The sun and not the planets. In fact, the last sentence of your quote says exactly that.

ALTER2EGO -to- NO NUKES:
That's not what the source says. The source says the smaller object "must move faster," indicating it is the small object's speed and gravity that prevents it from being sucked into larger planets. Notice this point in the words bolded in light green from the same quotation.

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.

QUESTION #4 to NO NUKES: Did you notice that the source specifically says the smaller planet "must move faster" and that it did not say the larger planet makes the smaller planet move faster?

"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 41 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-11-2013 12:53 PM Alter2Ego has not yet responded Message 44 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-11-2013 2:11 PM Alter2Ego has not yet responded Message 45 by NoNukes, posted 04-11-2013 2:13 PM Alter2Ego has responded

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member

 Message 41 of 77 (696045) 04-11-2013 12:53 PM Reply to: Message 40 by Alter2Ego04-11-2013 12:32 PM

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

 This message is a reply to: Message 40 by Alter2Ego, posted 04-11-2013 12:32 PM Alter2Ego has not yet responded

 Replies to this message: Message 56 by NoNukes, posted 04-11-2013 7:23 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Taq
Member (Idle past 86 days)
Posts: 8488
Joined: 03-06-2009

 Message 42 of 77 (696046) 04-11-2013 1:18 PM Reply to: Message 39 by Alter2Ego04-11-2013 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.

Hehe, this is actually getting funny.

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

Percy
Member
Posts: 20503
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 8.3

 Message 43 of 77 (696047) 04-11-2013 1:19 PM Reply to: Message 34 by Alter2Ego04-11-2013 10:29 AM

Re: Precision in Nature: Evidence of God or Accidents?
Hi Alter2Ego,

Just as a fisher cat is not a type of cat, and a koala bear is not a type of bear, a dwarf planet is not a type of planet, but it's a common confusion.

--Percy

 This message is a reply to: Message 34 by Alter2Ego, posted 04-11-2013 10:29 AM Alter2Ego has not yet responded

Member (Idle past 166 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006

 Message 44 of 77 (696052) 04-11-2013 2:11 PM Reply to: Message 40 by Alter2Ego04-11-2013 12:32 PM

Re: Precision in Nature: Evidence of God or Accidents?
 QUESTION #4 to NO NUKES: Did you notice that the source specifically says the smaller planet "must move faster" and that it did not say the larger planet makes the smaller planet move faster?

It appears that you are unable to understand the things you read. It does not specifically say that at all, and if it did then that would be false for reasons that I have already explained to you.

 This message is a reply to: Message 40 by Alter2Ego, posted 04-11-2013 12:32 PM Alter2Ego has not yet responded

NoNukes
Inactive Member

 Message 45 of 77 (696053) 04-11-2013 2:13 PM Reply to: Message 40 by Alter2Ego04-11-2013 12:32 PM

Re: Precision in Nature: Evidence of God or Accidents?
 QUESTION #4 to NO NUKES: Did you notice that the source specifically says the smaller planet "must move faster" and that it did not say the larger planet makes the smaller planet move faster?

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.

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.

Again, since you have been so successful in reducing the issue to only a couple of sentences, I will be willing to explain further if I think I can help. I appreciate your tenacity in what appears to be an honest effort to understand.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Edited by NoNukes, : Add info regarding larger suns.

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 40 by Alter2Ego, posted 04-11-2013 12:32 PM Alter2Ego has responded

 Replies to this message: Message 47 by Taq, posted 04-11-2013 2:59 PM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply Message 50 by Alter2Ego, posted 04-11-2013 4:25 PM NoNukes has responded

 Date format: mm-dd-yyyy Timezone: ET (US)