Who wants to argue creation?

a reply to: cooperton

How about dropping the condescending attitude and actually learn something for once? You ask these questions like they don't have answers. We have actually measured the moon moving away from our planet. This isn't debatable science.

Why the Moon is getting further away from Earth

It is thought that the Moon was formed when a proto-planet about the size of Mars collided with the early Earth around 4.5bn years ago. The debris left over from impact coalesced to form the Moon. Computer simulations of such an impact are consistent with the Earth Moon system we see in the 21st Century.

The simulations also imply that at the time of its formation, the Moon sat much closer to the Earth - a mere 22,500km (14,000 miles) away, compared with the quarter of a million miles (402,336 km) between the Earth and the Moon today.

The Moon is believed to have formed after a massive collision between the Earth and an asteroid

The Moon continues to spin away from the Earth, at the rate of 3.78cm (1.48in) per year, at about the same speed at which our fingernails grow.

Without the Moon, the Earth could slow down enough to become unstable, but this would take billions of years and it may never happen at all.

The migration of the Moon away from the Earth is mainly due to the action of the Earth's tides.

The Moon is kept in orbit by the gravitational force that the Earth exerts on it, but the Moon also exerts a gravitational force on our planet and this causes the movement of the Earth's oceans to form a tidal bulge.

Due to the rotation of the Earth, this tidal bulge actually sits slightly ahead of the Moon. Some of the energy of the spinning Earth gets transferred to the tidal bulge via friction.

This drives the bulge forward, keeping it ahead of the Moon. The tidal bulge feeds a small amount of energy into the Moon, pushing it into a higher orbit like the faster, outside lanes of a test track.

This phenomenon is similar to the experience one feels on a children's roundabout. The faster the roundabout spins the stronger the feeling of being slung outwards.

As the Earth's rotation slows down, our whole planet may start to slowly wobble and this will have a devastating effect on our seasons

But the energy gained as the Moon is pushed higher is balanced by a reduction in the energy of its motion - so an acceleration provided by the Earth's tides is actually slowing the Moon down.

While 3.78cm may not seem like much, this small difference over a long enough period of time could affect life on Earth, making the planet slow down.

originally posted by: cooperton
For how critical you are of these "coincidences", you seem to be 100% sure about the moon moving away from earth. Why is that though? Is not gravity an attractive force? For that matter, what is preventing the earth from hastily approaching the sun? The sun's attractive force via gravity far outmatches any of the planets that could pull the earth the other way. So, why hasn't the earth fallen closer to the sun?

Read a book or paper about gravity and it will answer your questions. The moon orbit can be measured,which is how we know it's moving further away. The earth's gravity isn't enough to hold it, plus it is still following the path that was set up when a large object collided with earth during the bombardment period. If the sun's gravity was enough to pull the earth in, it would have already done so. Obviously it is not, and I'm not sure what kind of point you are trying to make by suggesting this. Remember, the planets are following the sun around the milkyway, they aren't rotating around a fixed sun. The moon is moving away from the earth because it is moving fast enough to escape gravity.

"That's what an orbit is, the earth zooms past the sun and the centripetal force is exactly the same as the attractive force of the sun"

Oh my, what a coincidence. All the other planets behave this way too? Amazing. What are the odds? Astronomical. Unless, perhaps, it was by design.

Coincidence? How? We understand gravity and the math involved. The odds for this are 100% because we know that every object with mass has gravitation pull and the more mass the more gravity. You guys love to use words like "astronomical" to describe something you feel is right due to emotional connection with your faith, so making up silly words and catch phrases like "winning the lotto a million times in a row" or "near impossible odds" is something that frequently comes out of your camp, but oddly enough nobody can actually cite those odds. They just flat out make it up.

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: cooperton
For how critical you are of these "coincidences", you seem to be 100% sure about the moon moving away from earth. Why is that though? Is not gravity an attractive force? For that matter, what is preventing the earth from hastily approaching the sun? The sun's attractive force via gravity far outmatches any of the planets that could pull the earth the other way. So, why hasn't the earth fallen closer to the sun?

Read a book or paper about gravity and it will answer your questions. The moon orbit can be measured,which is how we know it's moving further away. The earth's gravity isn't enough to hold it, plus it is still following the path that was set up when a large object collided with earth during the bombardment period. If the sun's gravity was enough to pull the earth in, it would have already done so. Obviously it is not, and I'm not sure what kind of point you are trying to make by suggesting this. Remember, the planets are following the sun around the milkyway, they aren't rotating around a fixed sun. The moon is moving away from the earth because it is moving fast enough to escape gravity.

"That's what an orbit is, the earth zooms past the sun and the centripetal force is exactly the same as the attractive force of the sun"

Oh my, what a coincidence. All the other planets behave this way too? Amazing. What are the odds? Astronomical. Unless, perhaps, it was by design.

Coincidence? How? ...

"The Moon is believed to have formed after a massive collision between the Earth and an asteroid "
(lol @believed)

I believe the perfect equilibrium and mathematical foundation for all life indicates that there is some intelligence behind creation, rather than a complete accident.

Why doesn't the earth slowly approach the sun? The Sun's gravitational pull is much more significant than any of the other planetary bodies. For that matter, why does a negatively charged electron not fall into it's beloved positively charged counterpart in the nucleus? I do not want to stray off topic, so...

My main point: What are the odds that all the planets would reach a stable equilibrium with equal push and pull to allow the consistent orbits (the moon moving at 3cm/year can be dismissed by standard deviation alone) we see today? Seems like a magnificent coincidence, or, in my opinion, intelligent craftsmanship explains this better.

originally posted by: cooperton
"The Moon is believed to have formed after a massive collision between the Earth and an asteroid "
(lol @believed)

LOL at believed is right. You do realize they have constructed viable scientific models on this right? You probably consider it blind faith. That's the part that makes me laugh.

I believe the perfect equilibrium and mathematical foundation for all life indicates that there is some intelligence behind creation, rather than a complete accident.

I do not believe this and your use of the term "complete accident" doesn't even fit.

Why doesn't the earth slowly approach the sun? The Sun's gravitational pull is much more significant than any of the other planetary bodies. For that matter, why does a negatively charged electron not fall into it's beloved positively charged counterpart in the nucleus? I do not want to stray off topic, so...

Why ask why when you can type it in google? Who cares if the sun's pull is greater than the other planets? That's the reason the planets revolve around it rather than the sun revolving around the planets. The earth is far enough away and revolves around the sun quick enough to avoid getting sucked in. One day it will happen when the sun expands into a red giant, but those days are far away. Maybe you should study angles and momentum, it might give you a better idea.

My main point: What are the odds that all the planets would reach a stable equilibrium with equal push and pull to allow the consistent orbits (the moon moving at 3cm/year can be dismissed by standard deviation alone) we see today? Seems like a magnificent coincidence, or, in my opinion, intelligent craftsmanship explains this better.

The planets are not in equilibrium in the least. They all have orbits that are egg shaped, rotate at different speeds, revolve at different speeds and some orbits even cross each other. Mercury is close to the sun and revolves very fast, which is why it doesn't get sucked in. You might want to look up the concept of orbital velocity. Nothing in our solar system or galaxy is fixed. Even the black hole in the middle of the milky way is moving through the universe. Stop thinking in static terms.

a reply to: randyvs

If your only explanation regarding those 'gaps in science' is Faith, I'm afraid that's no explanation at all. No offense, of course. You believe what you want to believe. But simply saying that things we may not fully understand at this time are due to devine intervention is not sufficient. At one time people thought the world was flat becuase that's how God made it. They were wrong.

I tried googling, there are no sufficient answers. So, you tell me, why is the earth not getting closer to the sun when it is the overwhelmingly largest gravitational force in our solar system? What force is causing a pull that is equal to the sun's pull that allows the earth to have a consistent 365.24 day year?

a reply to: cooperton

If the Earth was stationary and not in an elliptical orbit it would be pulled into the Sun by the Suns immense gravity. It's a combination of Newtons Law and Keplers Law

the period of revolution of a body squared is proportional to the distance between the sun and the body cubed.

The Earth technically is "falling" around the Sun. The Earth has some initial momentum - it is moving in a direction,which is perpendicular to the direction of the Sun from the Earth. The Sun's gravity is enough to keep the Earth from flying off in a straight line, away from the Sun, but not enough to bring the Earth closer in - the Earth is continually changing its direction of movement, but in such a way that it follows a nearly circular path around the Sun.
If the Sun's gravity were stronger, it would pull the Earth in closer, but then the angle between the Earth's motion would also be changing more rapidly, so it would continue revolving around the Sun.
This concept is called the conservation of angular momentum, which is one of the basic principles of physics.

a reply to: peter vlar

Peter, how does it make sense to explain the mechanics of this physical
existence when some one says they believe "an intelligence was behind
creation? Does it make sense to explain internal combustion to someone
saying Corvettes are manufactured by Chevrolet? In an attempt to prove
them wrong? I don't see how the scientific breakdown of every individual
miracle such as this

If the Earth was stationary and not in an elliptical orbit it would be pulled into the Sun by the Suns immense gravity. It's a combination of Newtons Law and Keplers Law

negates the fact that random occurrance on top of just saying, that's just
how it all clicks, will never do in a million years. From across the universe
to deep down in our dna and in the tiniest molecule or even particle. The
precarious nature of our existence is dependent on the precision of a
watchmakers design. And the fact is there are only two choices Peter in
this corner of the ring. A superior intelligence? Or an infinite number of highly
unlikely perfected coincidences, that fill both the universe, consciousness and
our existence. But will never add up to a miracle because miracles are impossible.

You call em Keplars Laws and Newtons laws. I bet Newton would join me to
correct you and say, No Peter, Gods laws. So it's either "God of the Gaps" or
coincidence of the gaps? Many a slip, twix cup and a lip.

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: peter vlar

Peter, how does it make sense to explain the mechanics of this physical
existence when some one says they believe "an intelligence was behind
creation? Does it make sense to explain internal combustion to someone
saying Corvettes are manufactured by Chevrolet? In an attempt to prove
them wrong?

Who said I was trying to prove anyone right or wrong? That's your personal interpretation. Perhaps it's merely an extension of the phenomena of projection based on your many contentious debates with a multitude of posters on ATS?

The poster asked a specific question as to why the Sun does not, with its massive gravity well, pull the earth from the Earths stable orbit into the Sun itself. I merely provided an explanation for such which is based on facts and laws supported by both real time observations and a slew of precise mathematical calculations.

I don't see how the scientific breakdown of every individual
miracle such as this

If the Earth was stationary and not in an elliptical orbit it would be pulled into the Sun by the Suns immense gravity. It's a combination of Newtons Law and Keplers Law

negates the fact that random occurrance on top of just saying, that's just
how it all clicks, will never do in a million years. From across the universe
to deep down in our dna and in the tiniest molecule or even particle. The
precarious nature of our existence is dependent on the precision of a
watchmakers design.

But we have astronomical observations and over a century or mathematics, math that has been tried time and again to be disproven or poked at in a search for flaws, that stand the test of time and support basic premises of Physics such as conservation of angular momentum. I'm more than open minded enough to entertain the possibility of your watchmaker if the evidence were there to support it. Are you willing to do the same? Would you really be as open minded as you seem to insist others need to be and accept the possibility that the entire premise of your world view has been incorrect your entire life?

And the fact is there are only two choices Peter in
this corner of the ring. A superior intelligence? Or an infinite number of highly
unlikely perfected coincidences, that fill both the universe, consciousness and
our existence. But will never add up to a miracle because miracles are impossible.

It's interesting that when others disagree with your personal position on these matters that are obviously near and dear to your faith, you call them closed minded because they will not or can not see the possibilities of your own perspective yet time and again, you demonstrate that same closed mindedness when faced with something that is in defiance with your paradigm.
Also, why limit yourself to only 2 choices? in a universe as vast, bizarre and wonderful as ours is, the possibilities are absolutely endless!

You call em Keplars Laws and Newtons laws. I bet Newton would join me to
correct you and say, No Peter, Gods laws. So it's either "God of the Gaps" or
coincidence of the gaps? Many a slip, twix cup and a lip.

Are you sure about Newton?

Like many contemporaries (e.g., Thomas Aikenhead) he lived with the threat of severe punishment if he had been open about his religious beliefs. Heresy was a crime that could have been punishable by the loss of all property and status or even death (see, e.g., the Blasphemy Act 1697). Because of his secrecy over his religious beliefs, Newton has been described as a Nicodemite.[9] According to most scholars, Newton was Arian, not holding to Trinitarianism.[9][22][23] 'In Newton's eyes, worshipping Christ as God was idolatry, to him the fundamental sin'.[24] As well as being antitrinitarian, Newton allegedly rejected the orthodox doctrines of the immortal soul,[9] a personal devil and literal demons.[9] Although he was not a Socinian he shared many similar beliefs with them.[9] A manuscript he sent to John Locke in which he disputed the existence of the Trinity was never published

a reply to: peter vlar

something that is in defiance with your paradigm.

The thing is Peter no one has shown me to this date anything
in defiance of my paradigm, as you refer to it. That was the only point
I was looking to make. I was asking you how it makes sense using what you
said but I meant it in more general terms then you personally not making
sense with your reply.

If that makes any GD sense?

Apologies,

As for Newton, of course I could be wrong. Evidence works both ways to
show us once again, we can not know anyones inner most. So why post
evidences back and forth in futile effort, when in the end, we are all
wrong?

I'm more than open minded enough to entertain the possibility of your watchmaker if the evidence were there to support it

See by this you declare the way God does things isn't good enough for you.
" If the evidence were there" we would all be on Gods good side and the fail
safe of faith would lose all it's importance. So a human being who reaches
maturity is presented with a choice to make. You made that choice yourself
didn't you? So you can't deny that much. And we all have a 50/50 chance of
making the right choice. Until we/you DEMAND to know something. According
to scripture there was a time when we did know and that wasn't good enough
either. We are being taught a lesson here. Those who catch on and learn that
lesson, move on to the next level. Those who do not? GAME OVER.

a reply to: peter vlar

Skip to 2:15 in this video for an explanation of contemporary theory on planetary orbit:

www.youtube.com...

This example, bending of space time, is currently the best explanation of gravity. Newton's model is outdated as demonstrated by the curving spacetime model which Dr Eddington and Einstein proved by demonstrating that starlight bends more significantly during an eclipse. The Newton model has been replaced by relativity, because it better explained the orbits of mercury and venus among other improvements.

In the youtube video I showed^ it still doesn't account for what force is disallowing the orbiting planets to fall into the sun. The analogy they gave was a bread loaf in the middle of a tablecloth as the sun, with apples as the planets, they generally take the orbiting path, but as we know, the apple would eventually fall into the bread loaf. Einstein admitted his theory was incomplete, but it was an improvement.

This leads me back to my original question, what are the odds that all the planets maintain their orbits in equilibrium? Why aren't we falling towards the sun, there are negligible forces (planets exterior to our earthly orbit) that are pulling us away from the sun, but they are no where near the magnitude of the sun's gravitational pull. To complete the analogy shown in the video, the apple would eventually fall into the loaf (sun) in the tablecloth. But, we see a consistent 365.24 day orbit ever year.

a reply to: cooperton

Maybe you could explain mathematically why you think the sun's gravity should be enough to pull the earth out of orbit? There is no force that prevents them from falling into the sun! They are moving fast enough through space to avoid it. I'm pretty sure both Peter and I have explained this to you. Planetary orbits aren't equal, so there is no equilibrium. The solar system emerged around 4.5 billion years ago. Any planets or debris that couldn't escape the sun's gravity were sucked in then and over time. Obviously the earth is not one of them, as it is here today and the orbit is not shrinking.

Again, angular momentum explains this perfectly as well as orbital velocity. It's about the speed in which they orbit, not the strictly the gravitation pull of the sun. The speed counteracts the gravity. That's how we learned to escape the earth's gravity in a space ship and go to the moon as well as put satellites in orbit. Space ships do not just move up. They actually orbit the earth twice before building up enough speed to escape orbit.

The factors involved are:

-The sun's gravitational pull
-The mass of the planet
-The speed in which objects revolve around it
-The gravitational influences of other objects in the area
-The distance from the sun

You might also want to look up the slingshot effect as the speed of revolution changes throughout the year depending where in the orbit it is. It's difficult to explain without a video representation.

I kind of think of it like a funnel. If you have a golf ball moving at a consistent speed, it will keep moving around the funnel, yet it won't get sucked in or spit out. If you add speed to the ball it can leave the orbit. If you slow the ball down, it gets closer to the center until it goes down the hole.

a reply to: Deaf Alien

Some advanced race of aliens came here and created a perfect ratio of sun-moon-earth. Wouldn't that destroy your idea?

Do you think it would?

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: cooperton
The speed counteracts the gravity.

Gravity is an acceleration (m/s^2) so it would trump speed (m/s). Since the Sun is the major gravitational force acting upon the earth, the earth should be accelerating, increasing its speed, toward the sun. And that's what I can't wrap my head around. Your golf ball example is good, but, what are the odds that we get a bunch of planets to behave in such a way around the sun? I could see maybe one planet, but 8? I find it hard to believe that the planets reached that perfect golf-ball-swirling-around-funnel speed with nothing but chaos to govern their harmony. And, any "law" that we may be able to surmise, is just us describing the craftsmanship of some being that we cannot fathom at our current state. Mathematics is intelligence.

There is no "creation," because time is non-linear and curves back in on itself. The universe and everything, including life, is pretty much constantly recycling forward and backward in time, making a creator completely unnecessary.

a reply to: cooperton

why dont you and everyone else onthisnplanet get sucked right off the surface of the earth and into the sun. i mean the suns gravitational pull is far greater than the earths right? so the.moon should be getting sucked into the sun and away from the rsrth also? allbof this has been explained. just because you choose not to accept it doesnt make it amy less valid really. you do know gravity is a weak force. jump in the air. wow you defied gravity for a few seconds. go you !!

originally posted by: Blue Shift
There is no "creation," because time is non-linear and curves back in on itself. The universe and everything, including life, is pretty much constantly recycling forward and backward in time, making a creator completely unnecessary.

Prove it.

originally posted by: moosevernel
a reply to: cooperton

why dont you and everyone else onthisnplanet get sucked right off the surface of the earth and into the sun. i mean the suns gravitational pull is far greater than the earths right? so the.moon should be getting sucked into the sun and away from the rsrth also? allbof this has been explained. just because you choose not to accept it doesnt make it amy less valid really. you do know gravity is a weak force. jump in the air. wow you defied gravity for a few seconds. go you !!

No drunk typing in my thread.

originally posted by: Blue Shift
There is no "creation," because time is non-linear and curves back in on itself. The universe and everything, including life, is pretty much constantly recycling forward and backward in time, making a creator completely unnecessary.

Aaand...

...cue Emanationism.

👣

a reply to: randyvs

I fully believe in god, I am fascinated by, and believe in science, as well. I just happen to believe God is a master chemist/alchemist/etc. They are not exclusive - In fact, I've been taught we are here to learn as much as we can before ending this life.