Distance has little to do with the greenhouse effect that would occur. Creationists had to leave the vapor canopy model behind because the greenhouse effect with a vapor canopy over the earth would cause the temp to rise to over 600 degrees F at the lowest, according to computer models.
Distance certainly has something to do with greenhouse effects, the further away you are from the sun the less of the sun's energy is going to reach you in order to produce a greenhouse effect.
We have less than 1% CO2 in the atmosphere now and we are concerned about global warming. The standard geo volcanically caused atmosphere has very high levels of CO2 along with WATER VAPOR. Even if the first alleged ocean was very low, steam takes 1700 times the volume of liquid water, so there was alot of vapor hypothetically. The heat would have never allowed the H20 vapor to condense.
Not only that with the extreme heat, what chemical reactions would have results with N and methane in the atmosphere?
A thick atmosphere with the composition put forward for the early earth would also reflect energy from the sun away from earth so once the crust cooled down below the boiling point of water I don't see why the atmosphere should have stayed too hot for water to condense.
It's also interesting to note that the standard explanation for earth's early atmosphere is consistent with both geological evidence and biological evidence for the first forms of life. Earth's early atmosphere was composed of lots of gases released from volcanoes and nitrogen. It wasn't until the first cyanobacteria developed that oxygen began to be released into the atmosphere where it gradually built up to today's levels. This is supported by geological formations such as banded iron formations.
What was the original "center of gravity" in the beginning stages of our planet? The larger objects have more gravity. How do you get a small object to begin to pull objects into it? We should be able to see this happening in the asteroid belt. Newtonian physics (and I'm not a physicist, but I know enough to know this) would predict bumping and bouncing if two objects collide in space--this is exactly what happens in the asteroid belt.
Everything that has mass has gravity. The solar system probably began as a nebula of dust and gas, unless each dust particle was the same mass and distance away from each other they would, very slowly, begin to attract each other. Eventually a small clump formed, as more material was attracted it gained mass and thus had a stronger gravitational pull. Just like water going down a drain this began to pull surrounding material into a spiral formation. As the solar system began to take shape heavier elements were pulled more towards the center to eventually become the inner planets while the less dense gases remained somewhat more distant and became the outer planets. The asteroid belt is the "leftovers" of this process.
It seems like you're saying that gravity isn't a function of an object's mass here which is reeeaaaalllllyyyyy scary. Why do you suppose the moon orbits earth instead of the other way around?
You could probably ask the astrophysicists who postulate migration of the new planets they are discovering around stars. A few of them are larger than Jupiter, as close in their orbit as Mercury and have elliptical orbits of days or weeks (one has 8 days).
Funny that they can migrate in, but to ask why that wouldn't happen to us is considered out of the question by staus quo science. It's too inconvenient to consider.
Ahhhh, you mean elliptical orbits. "Migrating" smacks of Velikovsky which always makes me nervous I might develop eye diabetes reading posts about inner and outer planets roaming around willy-nilly. True, many extra-solar system planets have been shown to have extreme elliptical orbits. . .but then one should remember that all planets have elliptical orbits, some are just more elliptical that others. That being said, we have found extra-solar systems with relatively mild-elliptical orbits similar in shape to our own solar system. You can take a look at our solar system and extra-solar systems here
The sun did not determine the momentum of the earth. Our satellites must be continually adjusted in orbit, because gravity causes drag and gradually slows the satellite. In the standard model there is no explanation for a physical mechanism that would keep the earth in orbit 4.6 b revolutions.
Actually to my knowledge only geostationary satellites (those that "appear" to remain in the same position all the time) need to have their orbits adjusted. And even then this is due to the earth not being perfectly round which requires the satellites to be re-aligned every two weeks.
Of course even regular orbiting satellites need to be adjusted from time to time. Orbital velocity is the speed a satellite needs to achieve in order to maintain it's distance from the earth and this depends largely on the satellites altitude. Usually we like to keep those satellites pretty close so that they orbit the earth faster and thus we can cover a larger area with them which means that their orbits will degrade faster. The earth, by comparison, is really far away from the sun so our orbit is degrading reallllllly slow. Eventually we would crash into the sun. . .but it will probably run out of fuel and go supernova before then in which case the effect would be, from our point of view, the same.
The explanation of the planets and asteroid belt pulling back and counterbalancing the pull of the sun is weak. If this was so then every object with gravitational pull behind our line of orbit would eventually slow our orbit.
The truth is that God keeps the Earth in orbit--just like He also made it perfectly geometrical (not a perfect sphere, but perfectly radial)--and if it was not so centrifugal force in the spin would knock us out of orbit.
None of this makes any sense. The earth's orbit is maintained by it's velocity which is perpetuated by inertia. Why on earth would God need to intervene into the orbit of every object in the universe? Jupiter has over sixty objects orbiting it. . .does God need to hold up each one? Wouldn't it be simpler to just set up a universe governed by laws like inertia? Kind of like our is?