It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Is the Sun four days off center in the solar system?

page: 10
14
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 17 2015 @ 09:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Entreri06

He already said he got it from his dad earlier in the thread, but couldn't confirm where his dad got it from.


Well it looks like dad pulled it out of his @$$. It isn't even enough of a "conspiracy" for google to have heard of it.....

You can google anything! And have at least a couple hits that are relevant and I ONLY got this thread lol.




posted on Mar, 17 2015 @ 09:02 AM
link   
a reply to: Entreri06

I think that was the gist of the post he posted as well. His dad had an idea, and the op was tossing it around in his head for awhile and decided to vocalize it as a thread. I don't remember where that post occurred in the thread though otherwise I'd link to it.



posted on Mar, 17 2015 @ 09:07 AM
link   
What both creationists and scientific naturalists FAIL to understand is the marriage of synthetic and natural configurations of design is the focus of god and science proving the closer we understand marriage from beginning to end we realize the mental capacity to understand more at once becomes in encompassing or unable to recall all that is known which is a requirement to understanding the truth forcing a team of memory allocation specialist to ascertain the immense knowledge of the big and of the small in realizing the thought wave dynamics of subatomic power as a communication thru the sun from heavens to the earth but in the end the red.white.and blue are important flag colors....red of the sun.....white of the moon....and blue of the earth....suggesting what is important lies right here.......these three agree........are public lives are here until synthetic transport and living with emotional and sustained ease can only be achieved by a power source of sustained reaction aka eternal energy.EE.



posted on Mar, 17 2015 @ 09:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Entreri06

I think that was the gist of the post he posted as well. His dad had an idea, and the op was tossing it around in his head for awhile and decided to vocalize it as a thread. I don't remember where that post occurred in the thread though otherwise I'd link to it.


Agreed. It's always funny the way people will stick to a crazy theory even when shown it makes zero sense. Having a crazy theory is awsome.... Denying logic, reason and science to hold into it is dangerous....



posted on Mar, 17 2015 @ 09:13 AM
link   
a reply to: indiancasinomafiadidit

There are many big words in this post, but I'm not sure they are being used how they should be used. Entertaining read in nonsense land though. I like how you connected the colors of the flag to universal knowledge. That was a new one.



posted on Mar, 17 2015 @ 09:15 AM
link   
a reply to: Entreri06

Yea, this thread would have proceeded much smoother if the OP had presented the argument, asked for opinions, then recognized why such an idea is silly once the evidence is presented to show that the idea is wrong. Instead he digs in and makes himself look incredibly foolish. When you start denying scientific laws or saying that an ellipse has more than 360 degrees in it, then you have a problem. At that point you need to stop working your jaw muscles and start working your ears instead.



posted on Mar, 17 2015 @ 09:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: indiancasinomafiadidit

There are many big words in this post, but I'm not sure they are being used how they should be used. Entertaining read in nonsense land though. I like how you connected the colors of the flag to universal knowledge. That was a new one.


Too me it just looks that poster was bit confused by big words, and is unable to differentiate between science and voodoo...


As for OP, too sad that he has not that thing... I forgot what is called.... ahh evidence... to support his claims... but in his world I am sure that earth was spinning around empty spot where God decided to place sun 4 days later...

I still blame it all on God's computer....

edit on 17-3-2015 by SuperFrog because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 17 2015 @ 09:47 AM
link   
a reply to: SuperFrog

OMG That is hilarious!



posted on Mar, 17 2015 @ 03:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
when I read the fourth day work of God in Genesi1 14-19 another point stuck out.

without an elliptical orbit there would be no seasons. So If Moses is correct in recording the events of the six day work of God. God knew that the four day difference of the orbit would cause seasons even before the orbit was traveled a full roughly 24 hour day (23 point blah blah blah hour day).


False. Seasons aren't caused by the elliptical orbit. They are caused by the earth rotating on its axis. The northern hemisphere is closer to the sun during summer as a result, while the southern hemisphere is closer during the our winter. The earth's distance from the sun is roughly the same in winter and summer and has nothing to do with the ellipse, it's about the earth being on an axis and appearing to "lean" one way.


So is the sun off center?

I say yes and the approximate time it is off center is on September 20–23.


Um. The sun is never off center, because the earth and other planets are not a perfect circle or even ellipse. It's never in the dead center. All the planets have gravitational influence on the sun as well so the sun does move (aside from it's normal revolution around the milk way center. Look at the 3D solar system to get a real idea. Check out the models that show the sun revolving around the milky way and the planets following it. The orbits are actually spirals, not perfect circles or ellipses.
edit on 17-3-2015 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 17 2015 @ 03:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: supergravity
a reply to: AshOnMyTomatoes

They have now found the expansion of the universe is ACCELERATING not slowing down, so the big bang DID NOT HAPPEN.....GUESS WHAT they where wrong. The speed of light is not a constant.Man thinks he is so smart but he always fails , The unsinkable titanic.....SANK.The nuclear plant in japan "HAS SO MANY REDUNDANT SAFETY MEASURES IT CANT FAIL" less than 24 hours after watching the EXPERTS say that it blew sky high.


Huh? How does acceleration mean the big bang didn't happen?

Prove the speed of light is not constant.

LMAO at this mini rant about science. It sounds like the big bad wolf.



posted on Mar, 18 2015 @ 09:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: AshOnMyTomatoes

originally posted by: ChesterJohn

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: peck420

It should also be mentioned that Earth's orbital eccentricity is 0.0167.


A value of 0 is a circular orbit, values between 0 and 1 form an elliptical orbit


This means that Earth's orbit is near almost circular.


how many degrees beyond 360 degrees is this almost near perfect circle?
That's not how circles work.

I'm pretty certain OP is trolling.

Not sure if trolling or seriously mentally impaired....cuz you know, poe....



posted on Mar, 18 2015 @ 10:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
Mind you both have 360 degree but which will take you longer to travel? The black circle or the red oval?

Just wanted to point out that the circle and ellipse in this image are not equivalent. The ellipse is much larger.

If you had showed an ellipse whose mean distance to center was EQUAL to the radius of an overlaid circle, the "thin" sides of the ellipse would be WITHIN the circle, and the "wide" sides of the ellipse would be OUTSIDE the circle. And yes, if the two shapes I have described were orbits in space, they'd both take the exact same time to traverse around once. These are basic Kepler's laws.
edit on 18-3-2015 by AshOnMyTomatoes because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 18 2015 @ 10:43 AM
link   
a reply to: flammadraco

What started that supernova you referred to? Where did the gas come from that fueled it?

Just curious, as you seem pretty confident in your religion/faith so there must be something more to it that's likely interesting.



posted on Mar, 18 2015 @ 10:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: GenerationGap
a reply to: flammadraco

What started that supernova you referred to? Where did the gas come from that fueled it?

Just curious, as you seem pretty confident in your religion/faith so there must be something more to it that's likely interesting.


If you believe that Science is now classed as a "Religion or Faith" then I have nothing else to add. I could go into the whole Science aspect of where the Sun came from but it would be a waste of my time.

Calling science a religion should be instantly recognised as an ideological attack rather than a neutral observation of facts. Sadly this is not the case, and it has become far too common for critics of modern, godless science to claim that it’s inherently a religion, thus hoping to discredit scientific research when it contradicts genuine religious ideology.

The most common and fundamental characteristic of religion is belief in supernatural beings — usually, but not always, including gods. Few religions lack this characteristic and most religions are founded upon it. Does science involve belief in supernatural beings like gods? No




posted on Mar, 18 2015 @ 10:57 AM
link   
a reply to: flammadraco

It's the classic straw man fallacy: reduce your opponent's position to one as weak as their own to try and dismiss it on equal grounds. You kind of feel sorry for such people, having to wrestle their faith with the onwards march of scientific enlightenment.



posted on Mar, 18 2015 @ 11:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Entreri06

I think that was the gist of the post he posted as well. His dad had an idea, and the op was tossing it around in his head for awhile and decided to vocalize it as a thread. I don't remember where that post occurred in the thread though otherwise I'd link to it.


he was tossing it around in his head because it caters to an ideal he himself admires.

the bottom line is jesus. nothing new.



posted on Mar, 18 2015 @ 11:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: GenerationGap
a reply to: flammadraco

What started that supernova you referred to? Where did the gas come from that fueled it?

Just curious, as you seem pretty confident in your religion/faith so there must be something more to it that's likely interesting.
This sounds like some science denialism, but I'm feeling generous this morning.

First: we can see stars across the galaxy that are in various stages of life. We've witnessed supernovae, we know of many "stellar nurseries", we see stellar disks, which is a stage of a star's life prior to it joining the main sequence. Nuclear physics matches up very well with our observations and our presumptions on what is happening in a star's interior. I'll give this caveat here once, but it can be assumed throughout this post: we don't know everything. There are still mysteries to be solved. But science is like whittling a stick into a sculpture: a mistake doesn't mean we scrap the whole project, and not knowing the end result doesn't mean we stop working.

We can look at galaxies that exist at very, very remote distances from ours. Assembling knowledge from across our scientific disciplines, we can roughly measure the distances to these galaxies in different ways. If we see a supernova occur in one, it provides us with a distance measurement. This is because there are relatively fixed conditions under which a certain type of supernova occurs, so if we see one, and make measurements of the light coming from it, we know enough of the variables to limit the distance at which it occurs from us to a range.

Also we know that at a certain range, the expansion of space itself is a far greater factor of an observed galaxy's relative speed to Earth. So at the absolute furthest reaches of the observable universe, we can estimate distance based solely on a galaxy's red shift, i.e. how far light that is produced by that galaxy is bent towards the longer wavelengths. The higher the red shift, the further away.

Summary so far: we can, with some accuracy, measure a rough distance to distant galaxies.

Now, when we look at the furthest galaxies, we see light coming from the stars that galaxy is composed of. Interestingly, this light tells us (through a scientific field called "spectroscopy") something about the composition of those stars. And in the galaxies at the edge of the observable universe, stars are lacking in "heavy" elements, that is, elements above Helium on the periodic table. Since this only occurs in stars that are billions of light-years away, and light that we can see from those stars is literally billions of years old (since it took that long for its light to get to us), we make the assumption that billions of years ago, stars lacked heavy elements. Stars closer by (our sun, for instance) have plenty of these elements.

Summary so far: we can measure the distance to galaxies, and distant galaxies are made of stars with almost no heavy elements in them.

Now we have a picture of the universe's evolution. We know that beyond the most distant galaxies we can see lies a barrier known as the Cosmic Microwave Background. This barrier is, as far as we can tell, the remnants from the universe's birth. It represents a period in universal history when the matter of the universe was so compressed, it did not allow for stars and galaxies to form. Space was a high-energy soup of matter too hot to form elements as we know them now. And when space expanded enough to allow matter to cool, it formed hydrogen and helium. Hydrogen and helium, to this day, are the most abundant elements in the universe. Main-sequence stars run on hydrogen fusion. When a star begins to fuse helium, its days are numbered. Interestingly, though fusion in stars is responsible for the elements beyond helium.

Summary so far: Distant stars (which equate to the most ancient stars) are formed of hydrogen and helium, which were made in the beginning of the universe. Elements beyond helium only exist due to fusion in the core of a dying star.

When a star DOES die, the manner of its death depends on its size. Stars like our sun die a wimpy death: they expand as they run out of fusable hydrogen, then collapse as they run out of fusable helium, shedding their outer gas layer and exposing a hot core called a white dwarf.

When a BIG star dies, it does so with a bang. Gravitational pressure is much greater in the heart of a large star, allowing it the energy to fuse elements beyond helium. Truly monstrous stars have the capability to fuse elements all the way up to iron in their cores. When the fusion center of a big star runs out of fusable material, look out! Massive explosions occur.

The supernova death of large stars releases a frightening amount of energy. Consider this: when observing a supernova in a distant galaxy, we are seeing the light from one single (dying) star. Galaxies consist of billions of stars. ONE STAR's demise can outshine the light from the entire rest of it's home galaxy. That's colossal energy being released.

The energy is so high, in fact, that many instantaneous fusions occur that go beyond what the gravitational energy allowed to happen in the star's core prior to explosion.

EVERY NATURALLY-OCCURRING ELEMENT that exists above iron on the periodic table exists because of supernovae. EVERY NATURALLY-OCCURRING ELEMENT that exists between helium and iron on the periodic table exists because of stellar fusion.

Now, to your question, which in essence is: where did our sun come from? Our sun formed like every other star (except for first-generation stars) has ever formed. Dust from a supernova, or more likely, from multiple supernovae. Our sun contains elements above helium. Since our sun contains elements above helium, and is not currently in the process of dying itself (which will happen when it begins making helium into heavier elements in its core), it is comprised of material that has ALREADY BEEN PART OF ANOTHER STAR.
edit on 18-3-2015 by AshOnMyTomatoes because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 18 2015 @ 11:40 AM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm

Yes, yes I agree. I was just trying to look a bit deeper than just "Jesus". Clearly the OP liked the idea because of his confirmation bias (which prevented him from doing his own independent research to find out why an idea like that wouldn't work). I was just describing where the idea originated from.



posted on Mar, 18 2015 @ 12:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: indiancasinomafiadidit
What both creationists and scientific naturalists FAIL to understand is the marriage of synthetic and natural configurations of design is the focus of god and science proving the closer we understand marriage from beginning to end we realize the mental capacity to understand more at once becomes in encompassing or unable to recall all that is known which is a requirement to understanding the truth forcing a team of memory allocation specialist to ascertain the immense knowledge of the big and of the small in realizing the thought wave dynamics of subatomic power as a communication thru the sun from heavens to the earth but in the end the red.white.and blue are important flag colors....red of the sun.....white of the moon....and blue of the earth....suggesting what is important lies right here.......these three agree........are public lives are here until synthetic transport and living with emotional and sustained ease can only be achieved by a power source of sustained reaction aka eternal energy.EE.


This is completely nonsensical.... I suggest anyone who wants a good giggle please read!!!



posted on Mar, 18 2015 @ 01:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: flammadraco

originally posted by: GenerationGap
a reply to: flammadraco

What started that supernova you referred to? Where did the gas come from that fueled it?

Just curious, as you seem pretty confident in your religion/faith so there must be something more to it that's likely interesting.


If you believe that Science is now classed as a "Religion or Faith" then I have nothing else to add. I could go into the whole Science aspect of where the Sun came from but it would be a waste of my time.

Calling science a religion should be instantly recognised as an ideological attack rather than a neutral observation of facts. Sadly this is not the case, and it has become far too common for critics of modern, godless science to claim that it’s inherently a religion, thus hoping to discredit scientific research when it contradicts genuine religious ideology.

The most common and fundamental characteristic of religion is belief in supernatural beings — usually, but not always, including gods. Few religions lack this characteristic and most religions are founded upon it. Does science involve belief in supernatural beings like gods? No



Oh I wouldn't say some one saying science is a religion is necessarily an attack. I always imagain when W. Bush would screw up a press conference then look at the camera and wink like "nailed it". Even tho he had just coined the term "decider". Lol


I think it's humorous. But I agree it's gonna be real hard to debate some one who's that brainwashed.


Off topic:

Reminds me of when people say those who play the race card are the real racists. Lol. Sure some times it's a scam, but how exactly does that translate to racism lol.




top topics



 
14
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join