Jump to content


The Exact Place And Size Of Our Sun And Moon.


  • Please log in to reply
150 replies to this topic

#1 Guest_Admin3_*

Guest_Admin3_*
  • Guests

Posted 28 May 2005 - 12:54 AM

In the debate over origins of our universe, it is often brought up about the size and distance of our sun, moon and earth, as being a well thought out plan. But science has always been able to explain that away, as if it were nothing. Well, there is another thing that proves this that I have not seen posted anywhere on the web. This one fact shows not only are these things created to a certain size and distance for life, but this also confirms it. Because these odds are impossible to do, and also make it impossible for science to explain.

Posted Image

What you see here is the sun right before a total eclipse. But what is it that is amazing about a total eclipse? Look at the picture below.

Posted Image

Can you see what is amazing about a total eclipse? The moon is the exact size and distance, to fit perfectly in front of the sun. But, the sun also has to be a certain size and distance as well. And the third factor, is the placement of our earth so we can view this. All these factors enable us to view what is not usually seeable because of our sun's brightness. That's the sun's chronoshere. That is the pink edge that you see around the edges of the moon in the pic above. To achieve this it would take precise sizes and distances of three object.

Posted Image

This is a close up of the edge of the moon during this total eclipse, to give you a better idea of this preciseness of placement and sizes of these three objects. And how it needs to be just so.

Posted Image

And this is a picture of what the eclipse would look like if the sun were a slight bit bigger or closer, or the moon a slight bit smaller, or further away from the earth. It could no longer be called a total eclipse. For the sun would shine around the moon. And the opposite would occur if the moon were bigger, or the sun further away. We could not view the chronoshere of the sun at all because it would be blocked out in such an event.

Here are some other nice pics I found on this: http://www.nies.ch/s...908a.37.jpg.php
Don't forget to click the next link at the top of the page to see more pics.

#2 Guest_Admin3_*

Guest_Admin3_*
  • Guests

Posted 28 May 2005 - 01:09 AM

There is also another thing that can be done while this total eclipse is going on. The pic below shows this.

Posted Image

What you see in this picture is called a Flash Spectrum. When the total eclipse occurs, you take a light prism, and look at the ecilpse. What does it do?

Posted Image

The science buffs can figure this one out. But from what I understand, this has really help science understand the make up of stars.

So, without all this preciseness of sizes and placement of these objects, we would not see what we see, or know what we now know about our sun, plus the other stars. So does all this still look like chance and accident? Or a designer placing and forming these objects so precisely?

#3 Guest_Admin3_*

Guest_Admin3_*
  • Guests

Posted 28 May 2005 - 01:29 AM

If you want to see for yourself how hard this is to achieve. Get some spare change, and try different coins to achieve the affect. Stand in front of a light bulb and close one eye. Put coin inbetween you and the light bulb. Make the the coin just barely cover the whole bulb from view, except the very edge, by positioning it the correct distance from you to achieve this.

Now, holding the coin in place, take a step foward allowing yourself to become closer to the coin your holding as if the earth were closer to the moon than it already is. You'll notice the edges of the light bulb disappear when you do this. If you step back one step from your original position, you'll notice alot more of the light bulb is now showing. To get the correct affect, for something simular to the total eclipse shown, you'll be able to understand when you do this test. Because you have to be precise in your distance from the bulb, the placement of the coin your holding, which will all be determined by the size of the bulb your using as well as the coin you hold.

#4 Guest_Admin3_*

Guest_Admin3_*
  • Guests

Posted 21 June 2005 - 11:37 PM

Upon the request of a member, I decided to reopen this thread. I have deleted all posts because of what happened last time. This is so we can start over. If this goes into the direction it went into last time, I will close it again, and use it as an example as to what happens when science can't explain something away.

I got the impression last time that people got mad because there were no good answers to the questions asked. So I closed the thread in all fairness for them to come up with answers. Now, it has been long enough. If you post here, better make sure your not wasting time trying to take thread off subject. I give only one warning.

#5 ninhursag

ninhursag

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 29 posts
  • Interests:Reasons. Why do people live/think/believe like they do?
  • Age: 20
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Estonia

Posted 22 June 2005 - 07:41 AM

:)

Khm-khm. So. As I noticed when reading this thread, this discussion lacked some crucial data. Though it could be assumed that anyone replying here knew the information by heart, there is an apt saying in English about what assuming does :). So, to make completely sure that everyone is going to be speaking of the same things, I'm going to put some of the more important numbers here. I hope anyone is not annoyed by me putting the metric values here, they just make it easier for me to keep track (miles make big things feel so small!)

So, first some base statistics.

The radius of the Sun at its equator is 695 500 km or 432 200 miles;
The radius of the Earth is 6 378,14 km or 3 963.19 miles;
The radius of the Moon at its equator is 1737,4 km or 1079.6 miles;

Naturally, these numbers here are averages and, in the case of the Sun, somewhat debatable (no hard surfaces).


Now, there's also the common misunderstanding that planets and their moons are always the same distance from each other (esp Earth and Moon) and that they travel the same route over and over again. As the truth is - welll, they don't exactly wriggle, but it's safe to say that the process is much more interesting than just going round and round :).

Currently,
Moon's average distance from Earth is 384 400 km or 238,855 miles;
Moon's closest to Earth at 363 300 km or 225 700 miles;
Moon's farthest from Earth at 405 500 km or 252 000 miles;
The difference is about 42 200 km or 26 300 miles.

Earth's average distance from the Sun is 149 597 890 km or 92 955 820 miles;
Earth's closest to Sun at 149 597 890 km or 91 400 000 miles;
Earth's farthest from Sun at 152 100 000 km or 94 500 000 miles;
The difference is about 2 502 110 km or 3 100 000 miles.

Sadly, these extremums given here are statistical averages themselves, not the known farthest or closest distances. The distances are not always the same due to gravitational effects. I was not able to find the reference, but this december the Moon was farther from the Earth than it has been in several years:).

What are the relations between these sizes? Is there anything extraordinary about them? Well, I think this is the basic measurable data from which such conversations can start :).



About the coin test - I might be wrong, but wouldn't the results of moving the Moon in front of the Sun always have a bit cleaner effect then in that test because of the Moon's gravitational field twisting the space a little and thus giving the lightrays a bit different direction? That's what happens when we study faraway
objects only made visible through a "gravitational lense". (One might argue, rightly, that the coin twists space, too - but then one would have to think about standing next to an ice cube and an iceberg of the same temperature. Whatever folks might say, size does matter).

#6 Guest_Calipithecus_*

Guest_Calipithecus_*
  • Guests

Posted 22 June 2005 - 10:16 AM

As I noticed when reading this thread, this discussion lacked some crucial data

View Post

Some of my deleted posts included similar complaints. There may not be any good reason to suppose that my objections will be considered any more productive upon being repeated than they were the first time, but since some of my recent reading has (coincidentally) touched on this matter, I've had a chance to give it a little more thought, and I may have some fresh input. My new ideas may not be considered productive either, but I suppose there's one way to find out. One complaint I recall making earlier I've since reconsidered. I would feel compelled to withdraw it, but since that little bit of housekeeping has been so efficiently taken care of for me, I'll return to my main objection:

This is a coincidence, yes, but just how much of a coincidence is it? What I see is an appeal to intuition, in the form of these statements:

"Can you see what is amazing about a total eclipse? The moon is the exact size and distance, to fit perfectly in front of the sun. But, the sun also has to be a certain size and distance as well. And the third factor, is the placement of our earth so we can view this."

"To achieve this it would take precise sizes and distances of three object."

Another way to look at this though, is to observe that we really don't have to vary all six factors at the same time; given any two bodies, at any distance, there is a size for a third body in between them that would produce this effect; not just one size in fact, but a range of sizes (defined above only as: "a slight bit bigger or smaller"). The size or distance of any one of the three may be considered similarly variable while treating the other factors as constants.

Before I could decide whether or not to agree that "these odds are impossible to do" (a necessary prerequisite to proceeding to explore the implications), I would need to see described a 'slight bit' more precisely just how long the odds are that are being defied.

#7 ninhursag

ninhursag

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 29 posts
  • Interests:Reasons. Why do people live/think/believe like they do?
  • Age: 20
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Estonia

Posted 22 June 2005 - 11:30 AM

Before I could decide whether or not to agree that "these odds are impossible to do" (a necessary prerequisite to proceeding to explore the implications), I would need to see described a 'slight bit' more precisely just how long the odds are that are being defied.

View Post


Well, we don't actually know that much about planets and their companions to decide what is and what is not truly unusual. We have only studied one solar system in some depth. (there is this new method that has already showed that other stars also have planets :), but so far only (Jupiter-like) gas giants are detectable, no smaller planets and certainly no companions :). I suppose we'll know more about them in a few decades though - I'll certainly be following any advances made in that area :)).

Until then it would be somewhat difficult to calculate the odds. We don't have much firsthand data and so might misunderstond something about the way planets and their companions would generally. Eg. (I think it was) I.Asimov (who) though that gas giants might be rare and so used this fact as a plot device in one of his novels :). Also, the numbers show that there is quite a bit of room for the planet's moon to move about without making life impossible on the planet.

A side note, not everyone notices the obvious conlusion from "the ...'s trajectory being influenced by gravitational forces". That means that the moon would generally be the farthest from the Earth in this month's cycle when it's closest to the Sun - some time before the eclipse. I suppose something could be made of this?

Actually, as a proof of conscious creation the rings of Saturn are probably easier to use at the moment. Now, dust around a planet, that's something we know as a fact that has a tendency to fall burning in the planet's atmosphere. Such a thing could not last very long - a few million years max. And yet, there they are, for all to admire :) - all with a telescope, that is.

#8 Guest_Calipithecus_*

Guest_Calipithecus_*
  • Guests

Posted 22 June 2005 - 12:34 PM

(there is this new method that has already showed that other stars also have planets, but so far only (Jupiter-like) gas giants are detectable, no smaller planets and certainly no companions.

View Post

Dude, that is like, so... last week.

But before we wander off (again) into estimating the number of planets located in the 'habitable zones' of their respective planets, I'd like to see the business about the solar eclipse phenomenon nailed down; what is the 'dimensional tolerance' for this effect?

#9 ninhursag

ninhursag

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 29 posts
  • Interests:Reasons. Why do people live/think/believe like they do?
  • Age: 20
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Estonia

Posted 22 June 2005 - 01:58 PM

Dude, that is like, so... last week.

Oops :) . So, I've not been paying any attention at all, have I? Silly me. :) Glad you pointed it out.

But before we wander off (again) into estimating the number of planets located in the 'habitable zones' of their respective planets, I'd like to see the business about the solar eclipse phenomenon nailed down; what is the 'dimensional tolerance' for this effect?

View Post


Uhhh... actually, for the corona to show - which is arguably the most impressive part of a total eclipse - couldn't the Moon be a little closer or bigger? Total eclipses don't happen when the Moon in its current size is at its farthest (the apogee), because the umbra doesn't reach the ground. Ehhh... now, the shadow of the moon is shaped like a cone and we know both the Moon's radius and the function for calculating a cone's cross-section (well, I will know it after I find my little book of functions, but, generally speaking...). So, basically, for finding the dimension tolerance for our moon, we'd only have to settle what is the closest the Moon can approach to Earth, without making life overly difficult :).

Edit: I suddenly can't remember what I wanted to do with the cone's cross-section :), but I'll leave it here, just in case anyone else figures it out.

Edited by ninhursag, 22 June 2005 - 02:03 PM.


#10 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 22 June 2005 - 02:09 PM

So, without all this preciseness of sizes and placement of these objects, we would not see what we see, or know what we now know about our sun, plus the other stars. So does all this still look like chance and accident? Or a designer placing and forming these objects so precisely?

View Post


The difficulty in answering this question is:
How can we reliably tell the difference between design and a chance alignment? If the occurrences is a unique one off, then we should be cautious and say chance is the likely explanation, however if this situation was present on every planet in our solar system, that would swing the pendulum the other way.

#11 Guest_Admin3_*

Guest_Admin3_*
  • Guests

Posted 22 June 2005 - 03:47 PM

I did not have problems with objections. The problem was with subjects that were a waste of time. Any data is great, for or against. It helps work out mistakes.

Example: People were saying we did not need the moon? I'm not a scientific expert, but I know better than that. Then other stuff simular started coming up. And even though I would explain why, these people were not listening. And wanted to continue. I figured they were trying to waste my time in a pointless debate that I had already explained, but was ignored. They really had nothing to support what they were saying, in which I made the comment that they could not explain this away, so they were grasping at straws. Trying to discredit the subject with false assumptions.

That is the direction I don't want the thread headed. We discuss, we debate. We bring info for and against. Not info that looks like someone has not done their homework, or is trying to throw off the subject. Understand?

#12 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 22 June 2005 - 10:29 PM

Additional information re eclipses, Take a look at these two maps,

total

and for annular eclipses where the moon does not cover the sun.

annular


Remember that an eclipse is very brief the maximum amount of totality time ever can be no more than about 6 minutes, averaging about 3 min.

If you not on the totality path you will not even know it has occurred, the amount of dimming is surprisingly little.

#13 Guest_Admin3_*

Guest_Admin3_*
  • Guests

Posted 22 June 2005 - 11:22 PM

Additional information re eclipses, Take a look at these two maps,

total

and for annular eclipses where the moon does not cover the sun.

annular
Remember that an eclipse is very brief the maximum amount of totality time ever can be no more than about 6 minutes, averaging about 3 min.

If you not on the totality path you will not even know it has occurred, the amount of dimming is surprisingly little.

View Post


Ok, this makes the odds even higher against this being by random chance.

1) The moon is not always the same distance from the earth.
2) The eclipse only last 3-6 minutes.

So now we have:

1) Exact sizes.
2) Exact distances ( to catch it at the right distance).
3) And an exact timing (a window of time, that if missed, would not acheive this).

Add this in with how many times eclipses happen. How much time passes. And then being able to catch it this way on more than one occasion. Shows exact placement of moon. Shows exact orbital speed.

So the odds become even more impossible. I doubt a super computer could figure out all those varibles.

#14 Heather

Heather

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 24 posts
  • Location:Mississippi
  • Age: 36
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Mississippi

Posted 23 June 2005 - 03:43 AM

Don't be silly. The universe is huge. We are on the outskirts of our galaxy. There are billions of stars. We are talking billions of planets. You can't tell me, without any real proof, that it's unlikely that our little planet, out of all the billions out there, couldn't have just happened to have a moon that aligns with our sun every now and then. We got lucky. What does this have to do with God? The sun and moon lining up has no point. It's a random event. It doesn't cause anything to happen on earth - it serves no purpose. Everything else on earth serves some sort of purpose. Was God just fooling around for no reason? I don't understand your point here.

Heather

#15 Guest_Admin3_*

Guest_Admin3_*
  • Guests

Posted 23 June 2005 - 06:08 AM

If it's so easy, where is life on other planets?

And you now what the point is.

Besides, if it happened because there was a chance, why did not the chance of life, and everything else that supports life happen on every other planet? The reality of chance does not always make that chance possible. And that's really true when the odds are not even conceivable.

I'm going to start another thread on odds. I'm going to expose how odds are used in science as a bias mechanism to prove the unprovable. For I get tired of this "not looking at the odds" thing. I believe someone made a comment on this once, saying that God did not throw dice. Wonder who that was?

#16 Heather

Heather

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 24 posts
  • Location:Mississippi
  • Age: 36
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Mississippi

Posted 23 June 2005 - 06:21 AM

There may very well be life on other planets. The problem is that we can only closely observe 9 out of the billions of them that are out there, and one of those 9 does contain life. In my opinion, that makes it seem likely that there are other planets capable of supporting life.

What is the point again? Who cares about the sun and the moon lining up? There are more important things that we could be looking at. The obvious fact that the sun and the moon line up every now and then does not make any case for the existance of a God. It's excuses like these that make creationism laughable to many scientists. (No offense).

Heather

#17 John Paul

John Paul

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 241 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Muslim
  • Creationist
  • Maynard, Massachusetts

Posted 23 June 2005 - 07:13 AM

There may very well be life on other planets. The problem is that we can only closely observe 9 out of the billions of them that are out there, and one of those 9 does contain life. In my opinion, that makes it seem likely that there are other planets capable of supporting life.

What is the point again? Who cares about the sun and the moon lining up? There are more important things that we could be looking at. The obvious fact that the sun and the moon line up every now and then does not make any case for the existance of a God. It's excuses like these that make creationism laughable to many scientists. (No offense).

Heather

View Post


Heather, Have you read the book The Privileged Planet? I would advise you do that before you go around making silly posts like that.



The first peer-reviewed article explains eclipses. Of all the planets & moons in our solar system, we have the only perfect solar eclipses. We also happen to be the only planet with observers and we have a clear atmosphere.

(see also Gonzalez, G., “Wonderful Eclipses,” Astronomy & Geophysics 40, no. 3 (1999): 3.18- 3.20)

This second peer-reviewed article explains why we need a large moon in the first place.

(J. Laskar et al., “Stabilization of the Earth’s Obliquity by the Moon,” Nature 361 (1993): 615-17)

Then we have to consider that the Sun is expanding and the Moon is getting farther away from us. That means perfect solar eclipses will be no more in some 5 million years. So it is a strange coincidence, in the evolutionary way of thinking, that conscious observers appeared just in time to catch and make the most of (scientifically) solar eclipses.

#18 Guest_Calipithecus_*

Guest_Calipithecus_*
  • Guests

Posted 23 June 2005 - 07:41 AM

So the odds become even more impossible. I doubt a super computer could figure out all those varibles.

View Post

In order for this discussion to rise above a useless exchange of assertions, I think we are obliged to at least try. Who's homework is this again?

As ninhursag noted above, the Sun's and Moon's diameters are about 1,391,000 and 3,476 km respectively, producing a ratio of about 400:1; the Sun's and Moon's distances from Earth are about 149,600,000 and 384,500 km respectively or about 389:1. So even without crunching the trig, we know that there is a dimensional tolerance of at least 2.5% or so in just that one direction. It's a pretty good fit, but not a perfect fit. Still a coincidence, but not really the mind-boggling coincidence it would be if the tolerance were something like .00025%. How much smaller the second ratio could be and still produce the effect would take some work to figure, but an intuitive stab at it would be maybe a few more percentiles -- and it ought to be even more going the other way (i.e., the moon being 'a bit too big'), unless there's some aspect of that which I neglect to consider (always a possibility). So what are the odds again? One in... maybe twenty? Somebody take over for me here.

Of course, we shouldn't be too quick to assume that any factor could be varied without certain consequences. Among the alternatives to a moon the exact size of ours orbiting the earth at the exact speed and distance that it does, there are only a limited number that would work. If it were much slower, it would crash into Earth; much faster, and it would escape into space (it eventually will as it is, moving away from Earth at about an inch a year). The coincidence you point to may have more to do with the fact that for an object of a given size (mass actually), and travelling at a given speed, there is only one stable orbit available. (It is largely because of this that the 'capture theory' of the moon's origin has been rejected as too improbable by most astronomers in favor of the 'big splash, or 'big whack' theory.)

#19 Heather

Heather

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 24 posts
  • Location:Mississippi
  • Age: 36
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Mississippi

Posted 23 June 2005 - 08:10 AM

The first peer-reviewed article explains eclipses. Of all the planets & moons in our solar system, we have the only perfect solar eclipses. We also happen to be the only planet with observers and we have a clear atmosphere.

The only planet out of 9, which isn't a very large number and doesn't mean much. We are one of nine (known) planets, and we happen to be the only one that has a near perfect eclipse. What about the billions of other planets that we know nothing about? You assume too much.

I still don't understand the point here. Are you asserting that God put the
near-perfect eclipse here so that we would have the joy of viewing it?

Heather

#20 John Paul

John Paul

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 241 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Muslim
  • Creationist
  • Maynard, Massachusetts

Posted 23 June 2005 - 08:51 AM

The only planet out of 9, which isn't a very large number and doesn't mean much. We are one of nine (known) planets, and we happen to be the only one that has a near perfect eclipse. What about the billions of other planets that we know nothing about? You assume too much.

I still don't understand the point here. Are you asserting that God put the
near-perfect eclipse here so that we would have the joy of viewing it?

Heather

View Post


9 planets but many, many moons. And only one combo allows for perfect solar eclipses and that one just happens to be the only one to have observers. Perfect solar eclipses, had you bothered to read the reference, afford us a wealth of scientific knowledge. IOW they are more than an enjoyment.

The point of the book is that the universe was designed for scientific discovery:

The same narrow circumstances that allow for our existence also offer the best over-all conditions for scientific discovery.


Currently there are 20 known factors required to come together in one place in time in order for complex, technologically capable life just to exist. However, those factors don't guarantee life.

of the 10^11 stars less than 5% are said, by the experts, to be capable of sustaining life. More than 1/2 of those are outside of the galatic habitable zone. And that is before we start considering all the other factors required- like a plant being in the circumstellar habitable zone.


Stars:

Total number estimated in the Milky Way- 100 billion
Over 80% are low-mass red dwarfs (most likely lack a habitable zone)
1-2% are massive short-lived blue giants
Only about 4% of the stars are early G-type, main-sequence stars like our Sun
50% of those are in binary systems
Then we have to consider what % of those are in the <b>G</b>alactic <b>H</b>abitable <b>Z</b>one

Earth-like planets:

We now know that our solar system is not typical
We do know other planets exist
At least 4% of Sun-like stars have giant planets at least as massive as Jupiter.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users