Jump to content


The Exact Place And Size Of Our Sun And Moon.


  • Please log in to reply
150 replies to this topic

#61 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 26 June 2005 - 07:06 PM

That is not scientific- "that is the hand we were dealt" Also the research shows if we didn't have a large moon we wouldn't be here to make any observations.
The point is Occam's razor would favor a scenario involving one designed universe, ie designed for scientific discovery, over a universe cobbled together via multiple chance collisions, coupled with multiple chance events, coupled with multiple atomic accidents.

View Post


It was not intended to be scientific, it’s just a figure of speech. There is speculation as to the importance of the earth having a large moon, but there is no way to test these ideas even if they make good sense.

The point is we didn't need perfect solar eclipses to live. We diid need them for scientific discovery and therefore a better understanding of our universe.

View Post


Ah yes Occam’s razor, more of a philosophy than a general rule of science, it is easy countered by real life examples of “things are not always what they seem”.

Occam’s razor could also be used to counter your argument thus – “A vast random universe that evolves intelligent life in one small part is far simpler to imagine that a single entity creating the same from scratch”.

We used what phenomena was available to us to discover what is discoverable, consider how human history would have been different if Venus had a moon similar to our own (that would mean it would be visible with the naked eye)!

#62 John Paul

John Paul

    Member

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

Posted 27 June 2005 - 05:10 AM

chance:
There is speculation as to the importance of the earth having a large moon, but there is no way to test these ideas even if they make good sense.


Actually there is a peer-reviewed scientific paper on it:

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

The paper demonstrates that this concept is more testable then the idea that cetaceans "evolved" from land animals.

chance:
Occam’s razor could also be used to counter your argument thus – “A vast random universe that evolves intelligent life in one small part is far simpler to imagine that a single entity creating the same from scratch”.


A vast random universe is what I posted. All you did was to change the wording and that does not make Occam switch sides. IOW a vast, random universe is in no way more simple than one designed universe.

chance:
We used what phenomena was available to us to discover what is discoverable, consider how human history would have been different if Venus had a moon similar to our own (that would mean it would be visible with the naked eye)!


If Venus had a moon then gravity wouldn't be what it is. And with thet goes our existence. IOW there wouldn't be any eyes to observe it.

#63 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 27 June 2005 - 01:49 PM

Actually there is a peer-reviewed scientific paper on it:

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

The paper demonstrates that this concept is more testable then the idea that cetaceans "evolved" from land animals.

View Post


No doubt, I also agree as to the moon importance, still does not imply that it is designed that way however.


A vast random universe is what I posted. All you did was to change the wording and that does not make Occam switch sides. IOW a vast, random universe is in no way more simple than one designed universe.

View Post


I rephrasing your sentence to make that point. But I beg to differ a random universe is far simpler, Matter energy a few physical ‘laws’ and the rest merrily falls into place. Compare that with an all powerful being designing it from scratch is far more than complex when one considers the intelligence/information required to come up with such a concept then have the means to do so! Come on it’s not even contestable!

If Venus had a moon then gravity wouldn't be what it is. And with thet goes our existence. IOW there wouldn't be any eyes to observe it.

View Post


I don’t understand your conclusions.
How would Venus having a moon like ours affect gravity?
How do you propose that it would affect our existence?

#64 Guest_92g_*

Guest_92g_*
  • Guests

Posted 27 June 2005 - 04:04 PM

But I beg to differ a random universe is far simpler, Matter energy a few physical ‘laws’ and the rest merrily falls into place.  Compare that with an all powerful being designing it from scratch is far more than complex when one considers the intelligence/information required to come up with such a concept then have the means to do so!  Come on it’s not even contestable!


You are kidding...... Right????? :)

Terry

#65 evolution_false

evolution_false

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 17 posts
  • Age: 13
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Location: At the keyboard

Posted 27 June 2005 - 04:54 PM

alright here, i dont really understand how the evolutionists could rightly argue this point except one way. as admin3 mentioned, the size, the distances, and the timing of the three factors on the very rare planet, the only one that we know of that supports life, the odds would be too little. however you argue, the total eclipse still happens, and the only way to really argue that point is to prove that the odds are still high enough. but the thing we have to remember is that the odds are along with the other odds surrounding the planet's life-supporting environment, such as the odds of having the right percentage of oxygen, the odds of mutations that would cause evolution, and such. which means that if this total eclipse happening on earth is up to 50% chance, that would still cut the other odds surrounding the planet in half. and i very much doubt this can be 50% chance.

#66 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 27 June 2005 - 06:56 PM

You are kidding......  Right????? :)

Terry

View Post


Far from it, because not only do you have to create the design, you have to make the rules for it to exit in, in addition to that, the pre existing complexity of the designer must be added, dare I mention information that must be available to the designer or created on the spot?
IMO the big bang is a firecracker by comparison to creation.

#67 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 27 June 2005 - 07:09 PM

alright here, i dont really understand how the evolutionists could rightly argue this point except one way. as admin3 mentioned, the size, the distances, and the timing of the three factors on the very rare planet, the only one that we know of that supports life, the odds would be too little. however you argue, the total eclipse still happens, and the only way to really argue that point is to prove that the odds are still high enough. but the thing we have to remember is that the odds are along with the other odds surrounding the planet's life-supporting environment, such as the odds of having the right percentage of oxygen, the odds of mutations that would cause evolution, and such. which means that if this total eclipse happening on earth is up to 50% chance, that would still cut the other odds surrounding the planet in half. and i very much doubt this can be 50% chance.

View Post


For any event/situation that has happened the odds must be a 1 (to some large number against).
But this is not asking the question the right way.

As an example of not calculating the odds in the correct mathematical way ill, give you another example - The earth moon eclipse ratio as explained is 400:1, but it’s not exactly 400:1. Now given that if 400.0000001:1 is just as good as 400:1 and so is 400. 0000002:1 etc, you notice I can reduce the odds in my favour very easily indeed. In fact, if a use this incorrect method of calculating the odds I can make a 400:1 ratio just about a mathematical certainty!

#68 Guest_92g_*

Guest_92g_*
  • Guests

Posted 27 June 2005 - 07:22 PM

Far from it, because not only do you have to create the design, you have to make the rules for it to exit in, in addition to that, the pre existing complexity of the designer must be added, dare I mention information that must be available to the designer or created on the spot?

IMO the big bang is a firecracker by comparison to creation.


If information is required for a designer to create, then its logically not possible for random materialistic processes to produce non-material information that is necessary for life to exist. It makes much more sense to believe there is designer with infinte knowledge that created the information, especially sense all known information requires an intelligent sender.

It may be more satisfactory for your worldview, but IMO, it denies the reality that we see.

Terry

#69 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 27 June 2005 - 07:42 PM

If information is required for a designer to create, then its logically not possible for random materialistic processes to produce non-material information that is necessary for life to exist.  It makes much more sense to believe there is designer with infinte knowledge that created the information, especially sense all known information requires an intelligent sender.

It may be more satisfactory for your worldview, but IMO, it denies the reality that we see.

Terry

View Post


Thus we have an information filled + material + spiritual universe Vs a materialistic one. 3:1 right there.

#70 Guest_Admin3_*

Guest_Admin3_*
  • Guests

Posted 27 June 2005 - 08:50 PM

I actually think the odds are not even comprehendable. Because of the moon's ever changing orbit, time, speed, and distance become three varibles for one object.

In the orbit of an object. Such as our moon. If the orbit were faster, the moon would have to settle for a further away orbit. Which would make the total eclipse impossible to catch at the correct time needed.

If the orbit were slower, the moon would be closer. Again making it impossible to catch it at the correct time needed for this total eclipse. But then, we have other factors to ponder.

1) At the moons current orbit and speed, it keeps the earth tilted on it's axis at about 23 degrees. Which allows for our 4 seasons.

2) The distance allows it's gravity to control our tides without harm or damage. But tides are needed to draw the impurities of our rivers and streams out into the ocean. Other wise, they would become a big stink.

3) The rotation of the moon allows us to only see one side of it at all times. What are the odds of a ratation to orbit match?

4) The speed of orbit allows the alignment for the exact time, and position, of three objects. To align as they would to achieve a total eclipse as it is done.

5) The exact size of the moon allows this alignment to mean something when it happens. Other wise, why even have it? Is it something needed for evolution, or our life to be sustained? I don't think so. So the random chance of even why this (the total eclipse) is needed cannot even be answered. As to why it would even be there unless the Creator put it there. Can anyone answer as to why this is actually even needed for life or anything else?

6) Then we have the 400 to 400 match. The distance between the moon and the sun is 400 times greater than the distance from the earth and the moon. But, that's not all. The sun is 400 times bigger than the moon. 400 to 400? What is the relationship of this to the life that exists on this planet? Why would there need to be a 400 to 400 match for life?

So the questions can be explained away to a certain extent. But there are questions I asked that will be ignored because there are no answers. Which also makes the explainations excuses for no evidence to explain away a Creator, and a Designer.

Here's one explaination in trying to explain away the earth and moon relationship. I actually think this is funny that this would even be attempted. And for what reason? The obvious one of course. Yes we could have many moons. Come and see how random chance could have given us just that. :)
http://www.space.com...oon_991029.html

So my question about that link would be: Why even ponder it unless your trying to prove a more random, chance and accident formation of our earth and moon? And I mind you, it's all speculation, because no one can "really" tell for sure what more moons would do that might harm us.

#71 Guest_Calipithecus_*

Guest_Calipithecus_*
  • Guests

Posted 27 June 2005 - 09:21 PM

3) The rotation of the moon allows us to only see one side of it at all times. What are the odds of a ratation to orbit match?

View Post

Astronomers would say that the moon has been despun due to tidal friction.

Read about that here.

#72 Guest_Admin3_*

Guest_Admin3_*
  • Guests

Posted 27 June 2005 - 11:56 PM

Astronomers would say that the moon has been despun due to tidal friction.

Read about that here.

View Post


Well, let's do the obvious. Let's apply the tidal friction to all other planets and moons and ask the obvious question. Why does not this apply to them also?

1) Is there one planet that tidal friction has caused it to rotate once everytime it goes around the sun? No?

2) What about moons of other planets? Has tidal friction done this to even one moon on other planets? No?

3) But here again this tidal friction theory, and it is a theory, only applies to our moon that just happens to orbit the unique planet that has life. The only moon that it's rotation is like this. How do you explain that the tidal friction has only done this to one moon, plus no planets? Does not tidal friction affect all moons and planets? Or just our moon so that this can be expalined away?

Just like I said here:

So the questions can be explained away to a certain extent. But there are questions I asked that will be ignored because there are no answers. Which also makes the explainations excuses for no evidence to explain away a Creator, and a Designer.


4) So does theories like this only get applied to things that are unexplainable?

5) And does this tidal friction get only applied to our moon?

#73 Guest_Admin3_*

Guest_Admin3_*
  • Guests

Posted 28 June 2005 - 12:10 AM

I did find something interesting about the planet mercury.

Although Mercury is not tidally locked to the Sun, its rotational period is tidally coupled to its orbital period. Mercury rotates one and a half times during each orbit. During Mercury's distant past, its period of rotation may have been faster. Scientists speculate that its rotation could have been as rapid as 8 hours, but over millions of years it was slowly despun by solar tides. A model of this process shows that such a despinning would take 109 years and would have raised the interior temperature by 100 degrees Kelvin.

http://www.solarview...eng/mercury.htm


This brings back to memory something that h*vind claimed about the earth spinning faster back in time. But yet everyone denied it. But yet I see it here being applied to another planet?

So let's see. We have tidal friction being the explaination for the slow down in spin of our moon and mercury. Which also means they spun faster back in time (billions of years). But since there's no problem with the spin of the earth, it's not applied to it either because it all fits just like it is.

I think I've just came up with the name for when science does this. I'm going to call it: Selective applied theory. Which means: Only apply where needed to prove your point of view. :)

#74 Guest_Calipithecus_*

Guest_Calipithecus_*
  • Guests

Posted 28 June 2005 - 02:52 AM

1) Is there one planet that tidal friction has caused it to rotate once everytime it goes around the sun? No?

View Post

As you noted, tidal effects caused by the Sun's gravity has had an influence on Mercury. Venus too. Eventually they will be entirely despun. The other planets are too far from the sun to be despun to any appreciable degree. The tidal force exerted by the Earth upon the moon is much greater than that of the moon upon the Earth, which is why the moon has been despun while the Earth has not. Tidal friction has slowed Earth's rotation, however, and given enough time, the two bodies will come to be locked in synchronous orbit.


2) What about moons of other planets? Has tidal friction done this to even one moon on other planets? No?

Yes. The inner moons of Jupiter and Saturn also have synchronous rotations. Saturn has 34 named satellites; of those moons for which rotation rates are known, all but Phoebe and Hyperion rotate synchronously.


But here again this tidal friction theory, and it is a theory...

It's simple Newtonian physics. (Well, it's fairly simple; I could draw it out on a chalk board and explain the effect in about ten minutes). This seems like an excellent place to invoke a well-worn cliche: "gravity is only a theory".

#75 John Paul

John Paul

    Member

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

Posted 28 June 2005 - 04:46 AM

chance:
No doubt, I also agree as to the moon importance, still does not imply that it is designed that way however.


Our Moon is more than important, it is required. According to the scientific research it is one of 20 factors required for complex life to exist.

chance:
But I beg to differ a random universe is far simpler, Matter energy a few physical ‘laws’ and the rest merrily falls into place. Compare that with an all powerful being designing it from scratch is far more than complex when one considers the intelligence/information required to come up with such a concept then have the means to do so! Come on it’s not even contestable!


But where did your matter, energy and those laws come from?

According to scientists Venus couldn't have a moon because the Sun's gravity would steal it. If Venus had a Moon, gravity would be different.

#76 Guest_Aristarchus_*

Guest_Aristarchus_*
  • Guests

Posted 28 June 2005 - 07:45 AM

Our Moon is more than important, it is required. According to the scientific research it is one of 20 factors required for complex life to exist.

View Post


I will admit that there is at least one scientist who believes that early life needed tidal stresses to evolve. However, I suspect no more than a handful of scientists accept such an hypothesis at this time.
http://www.newscient...le.ns?id=dn4786

I think one needs to be careful in interpreting the meaning of low probability events after they happened. Go out to a random street corner and write down the first two license plates you see. The probability of any particular license plate with 3 letter and 3 numbers is about 1 in 17 million (if I got those numbers right). The probability of any two particular license plate numbers occuring in a row is 1 in (17 mllion x 17 million) or around 1 in around 300 trillion.

So what do I conclude when XJR 374 is followed by SDF 496? Should I conclude that from the low probability that it could not have been by chance? Should I presume that those particular two license plate numbers were ordained by a higher power?

What if the angular size of the moon relative to the angular size of the sun was a ratio of exactly 2.0, or 0.5 or 3.14159? How many different kinds of events would we interpret as 'unusual'?Suppose the moons orbit didn't wobble so an ecclipse was seen every month? Suppose the moon's orbit allowed the shadow of the earth to cast an ideally sized shadow on the moon during lunar ecclipses?

#77 John Paul

John Paul

    Member

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

Posted 28 June 2005 - 09:06 AM

According to the following peer-reviewed article, if the Moon didn't exist, or were substantially smaller, the Earth would wobble so much it would eventually tumble. Such conditions would put too much environmental stress on any organism trying to survive. Never mind what it would do to the conditions on a pre-life Earth.

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

If, as has been suggested, the impact that created the Earth-Moon system also provided the energy for the Earth's rotation (the glancing impact sped up the Earth's rotation), that would mean the Earth was rotating slower at one time- pre-moon. Too slow of a rotation = too much exposure to the Sun's radiation for one side of Earth, while the other side grows increasingly colder.

I think one just has to read the scientific literature on this topic to see how fortunate we are.

Here are a couple of articles- one an intro to The Privileged Planet and the other an article written by one of it's authors:

Intro to The Privileged Planet

Habitable Zones in the Universe

#78 Guest_Admin3_*

Guest_Admin3_*
  • Guests

Posted 28 June 2005 - 11:16 AM

As you noted, tidal effects caused by the Sun's gravity has had an influence on Mercury.  Venus too.  Eventually they will be entirely despun.  The other planets are too far from the sun to be despun to any appreciable degree. The tidal force exerted by the Earth upon the moon is much greater than that of the moon upon the Earth, which is why the moon has been despun while the Earth has not. Tidal friction has slowed Earth's rotation, however, and given enough time, the two bodies will come to be locked in synchronous orbit.
Yes.  The inner moons of Jupiter and Saturn also have synchronous rotations.  Saturn has 34 named satellites; of those moons for which rotation rates are known, all but Phoebe and Hyperion rotate synchronously.

It's simple Newtonian physics.  (Well, it's fairly simple; I could draw it out on a chalk board and explain the effect in about ten minutes).  This seems like an excellent place to invoke a well-worn cliche: "gravity is only a theory".

View Post


But, has not the same time past for all objects that came from one matter that eploded? So should not all planets with moons that have the same gravity or stronger than earth have all moon in sync?

In fact, as strong as the gravity is on Jupiter, all moons should be in sync by now (billions of years), but are they? And should not mercury be the same? Look how close it is to our sun, and how many years has science said has past? But that's not the only factor. Meteors hitting mercury would make this happen even sooner, because each hit cancels the spin to some degree. Did all meteors miss mercury?

So lets see. We have a planet that's really close to our sun. It's tidal forces would be so great that it should be sync in orbit with the sun by now. But it's not. So if we to calculate how fast it was turning billions of years ago, compared to now. Would anyone care to guess how fast it would have to be spining to have the spin it has now? Being so close to the sun, it would have to turn so fast that it would have torn itself apart.

But I'm sure no one will apply this to that planet, so we'll have another example of: Selective applied theory.

#79 Guest_Calipithecus_*

Guest_Calipithecus_*
  • Guests

Posted 28 June 2005 - 11:26 AM

I think one just has to read the scientific literature on this topic to see how fortunate we are.

View Post

One doesn't even have to do that, really. I've come to view the recognition of one's good fortune as mostly a matter of choice; if one choses to focus on one's misfortune instead, it is possible to do that even in the face of what most would consider fabulous good fortune: riches, power, a loving family, the adoration of millions; these have not prevented many from becoming so transfixed on their misfortunes as to be driven to suicide (or at least as to become insufferable whiners).

What we're questioning here though, is not how fortunate we are, but how unique we are. Back when evolutionary biology was still heavily tainted with Victorian notions about progress, the eventual emergence of intelligent life forms was regarded as more or less an inevitable outcome of the process of evolution. It is now more fashionable to consider human-like intelligence to be an extremely unlikely outcome, even on a planet capable of supporting life -- even complex life.

Personally, my expectations of intelligent life existing elsewhere in the universe are nearly as low as my expectations of living to hear the announcement of such a discovery. But I still think the discovery of extraterrestrial microbial life would be of monumental significance, and I think it would be a bit hasty to dismiss such a possibility. Microbial forms on Earth can not only tolerate, but thrive in extreme conditions (which is why they are called: extremophiles). They inhabit minute gaps in rock far below the Earth's surface, and in geysers and boiling sulfur pools; they bask in radioactive rays; they metabolize hydrogen, and eat arsenic and oil. It has been proposed that the earliest forms of life on Earth were thermophiles.

If no such forms are found within our solar system, finding them elsewhere may involve insurmountable technological difficulties, but who knows -- after all, we've been lucky so far!

#80 Guest_Calipithecus_*

Guest_Calipithecus_*
  • Guests

Posted 28 June 2005 - 12:20 PM

In fact, as strong as the gravity is on Jupiter, all moons should be in sync by now (billions of years), but are they?

View Post

If you work down the chart on the site linked below, you'll see that those Jovian moons whose rotational periods are known do have rotational periods syncronous with their orbits, with a couple of exceptions; the exceptions are believed to be remnants of asteroids that were captured into orbit.
http://www.seasky.or...tem/sky3f6.html


And should not mercury be the same? Look how close it is to our sun, and how many years has science said has past?

Mercury is a special case, due in part to variability in the eccentricity of its orbit, and has become stable in a 3/2 spin-orbit resonance.
http://www.obspm.fr/...4/merc.en.shtml


Meteors hitting mercury would make this happen even sooner, because each hit cancels the spin to some degree.

Seems like this is complicated enough without bringing meteors into the picture, but if you insist, I disagree with your assumption. Why could not a meteor strike increase Mercury's spin?


Did all meteors miss mercury?

Perhaps not, but Mercury is still among the least likely targets in the system; not only would a meteor have to miss all the other planets first, but the sun's gravity is a bigger factor nearer Mercury's orbit.


We have a planet that's realy close to our sun. It's tidal forces would be so great that it should be sync in orbit with the sun by now. But it's not. So if we to calculate how fast it was turning billions of years ago, compared to now. Would anyone care to guess how fast it would have to be spining to have the spin it has now? Being so close to the sun, it would have to turn so fast that it would have torn itself apart.

Ya got me there. Might get back to you on that one. I'm not so sure the tidal forces on Mercury due to solar gravity would be greater than those on the moon due to Earth's, as you appear to be assuming (keep in mind that solar tidal forces on Earth are weaker than lunar tidal forces by about half).




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users