B. John Jones Posted January 23, 2016 Share Posted January 23, 2016 (edited) An invitation to every inclined physicist or cosmologist to admit or escape the notion that the energy and the forces between the earth, the moon and the sun, their substance and motions, are absolutely unique in the universe. Edited January 23, 2016 by B. John Jones Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajb Posted January 23, 2016 Share Posted January 23, 2016 The problem is that the forces and the matter seem quite universal. Can you clarify your question? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B. John Jones Posted January 23, 2016 Author Share Posted January 23, 2016 The problem is that the forces and the matter seem quite universal. Can you clarify your question? Would you admit or oppose the notion that earth, moon and sun are unique in the universe, without special regard to the "planets" in "our solar system?" I submit that every other "planet," star or terrestrial mass is simply a certain kind of satellite in orbit around another satellite, or in deviation from it's natural orbit, as with a shooting star. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajb Posted January 23, 2016 Share Posted January 23, 2016 Would you admit or oppose the notion that earth, moon and sun are unique in the universe, without special regard to the "planets" in "our solar system?" We have detected many other planets around other stars, some of these planets are 'Earth-like' and sit in 'Goldbricks' zones. You can find lists online if you are interested. I submit that every other "planet," star or terrestrial mass is simply a certain kind of satellite in orbit around another satellite, or in deviation from it's natural orbit, as with a shooting star. This I do not follow. Every object is (or was) a satellite of what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B. John Jones Posted January 23, 2016 Author Share Posted January 23, 2016 (edited) We have detected many other planets around other stars, some of these planets are 'Earth-like' and sit in 'Goldbricks' zones. You can find lists online if you are interested. This I do not follow. Every object is (or was) a satellite of what? A list says little. "Detection," of any mass of matter supposedly far more distant than the sun is not believable, much less claims that masses of matter have been "detected," orbiting them. We need an audit of all these "sacred," lists. ---------- Every object is by nature a satellite of another object. It's orbit is it's state of inertia. And groups of objects with their satellites are very much like atoms comprising masses. Edited January 23, 2016 by B. John Jones -6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajb Posted January 23, 2016 Share Posted January 23, 2016 "Detection," of any mass of matter supposedly far more distant than the sun is not believable, much less claims that masses of matter have been "detected," orbiting them. We need an audit of all these "sacred," lists. You could of course look into the science of how we detect such planets. Every object is by nature a satellite of another object. You are just being too lose here. Anyway the forces and matter that make up our Solar System do not appear to be unique to our local region of the Universe. We have good reasons to believe that physics is universal, for example we can use the same laws to model our Sun and we can for other stars. Another example could be modelling the motion of binary stars around each other, this fits with our laws of planetary motion. The list continues and so far we have no evidence that the laws of physics are different in, say other galaxies as compared with our own. I hope that answers your sort of opening question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B. John Jones Posted January 23, 2016 Author Share Posted January 23, 2016 You could of course look into the science of how we detect such planets. You are just being too lose here. Anyway the forces and matter that make up our Solar System do not appear to be unique to our local region of the Universe. We have good reasons to believe that physics is universal, for example we can use the same laws to model our Sun and we can for other stars. Another example could be modelling the motion of binary stars around each other, this fits with our laws of planetary motion. The list continues and so far we have no evidence that the laws of physics are different in, say other galaxies as compared with our own. I hope that answers your sort of opening question. Or I could make an educated guess that's it correlates with the way we "detect," electrons with an electron microscope. ---------- Okay, by modern standards of science, earth and moon are a member of a solar system, correct? How is it proven that 8 other planets are members of that system, and not of another? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajb Posted January 23, 2016 Share Posted January 23, 2016 Or I could make an educated guess that's it correlates with the way we "detect," electrons with an electron microscope. You are doubting the existence of electrons now? Okay, but that is another subject and you should start a new thread. Okay, by modern standards of science, earth and moon are a member of a solar system, correct? Yes, okay. How is it proven that 8 other planets are members of that system, and not of another? It is more of a definition. To be in the solar system the objects must be gravitationally bound to the Sun. This means that it is not 100% clear where the Solar System ends, but the main gravitational influence on the extrasolar planets is not our Sun but the star that they are orbiting. Still, the basic physics is not unique to our Solar System. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B. John Jones Posted January 23, 2016 Author Share Posted January 23, 2016 (edited) You are doubting the existence of electrons now? Okay, but that is another subject and you should start a new thread. It is more of a definition. To be in the solar system the objects must be gravitationally bound to the Sun. This means that it is not 100% clear where the Solar System ends, but the main gravitational influence on the extrasolar planets is not our Sun but the star that they are orbiting. Still, the basic physics is not unique to our Solar System. I'm not doubting the existence of the electrical charges detected by electron microscopes. My point is there's a correlation between their detection and our detection of very distant masses. ---------- Newton's gravity says that EVERY object in the universe is in the gravitational pull of the sun, and of every other object in the universe (in direct proportion to the quantity of the 2 masses, and in inverse proportion to the distance between the 2), which I do not doubt, naturally speaking. An eternal intelligence is absolutely certain if all the masses in the universe are orbiting other masses, rather than colliding either to one place of destruction, or in total confusion. Edited January 23, 2016 by B. John Jones Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajb Posted January 23, 2016 Share Posted January 23, 2016 (edited) Newton's gravity says that EVERY object is in the gravitational pull of the sun, and of every other object in the universe (in direct proportion to the quantity of the 2 masses, and in inverse proportion to the distance between the 2), which I do not doubt, naturally speaking. Okay, we get that also in general relativity. Basically gravity is a long range force. An eternal intelligence is absolutely certain if all the masses in the universe are orbiting other masses, rather than colliding either to one place of destruction, or in total confusion. That is a big leap that is not needed. We know enough about gravity to know about and study (quasi)-orbits and so on. Your claim that this implies God in nonsense. Equally so, by your reckoning, any an all aspects of nature imply a God, while many of us think quite the opposite! However, this seems off topic and related to the other thread we are involved in. Edited January 23, 2016 by ajb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B. John Jones Posted January 23, 2016 Author Share Posted January 23, 2016 Okay, we get that also in general relativity. Basically gravity is a long range force. That is a big leap that is not needed. We know enough about gravity to know about and study (quasi)-orbits and so on. Your claim that this implies God in nonsense. Equally so, by your reckoning, any an all aspects of nature imply a God, while many of us think quite the opposite! However, this seems off topic and related to the other thread we are involved in. How could it be the opposite? If every object is attracted to every other object, the natural courses of objects would appear to be collision. But the universe is such that they are purposefully arranged to be in in harmony, even being attracted one to the others, orbiting one another rather than colliding. That would require an omniscient Creator. -3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajb Posted January 23, 2016 Share Posted January 23, 2016 If every object is attracted to every other object, the natural courses of objects would appear to be collision. Objects do indeed collide and we see this all the time in astronomy and observational cosmology. But the universe is such that they are purposefully arranged to be in in harmony, even being attracted one to the others, orbiting one another rather than colliding. But is is not exactly harmonious! Again, the fact that we have stable orbits and know how to mathematically describe them does not imply a God. That would require an omniscient Creator. Not at all. Anyway, I think we at risk of getting off topic. You asked if the Earth, Moon and Sun system is special. The answers is probably not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted January 23, 2016 Share Posted January 23, 2016 I'm not doubting the existence of the electrical charges detected by electron microscopes. My point is there's a correlation between their detection and our detection of very distant masses. Yes, I suppose there is. So what? How could it be the opposite? If every object is attracted to every other object, the natural courses of objects would appear to be collision. Why? This sounds much more like argument from personal incredulity than science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Cuthber Posted January 23, 2016 Share Posted January 23, 2016 A list says little. "Detection," of any mass of matter supposedly far more distant than the sun is not believable, Yet another example of the logical fallacy known as argument from personal incredulity. Do you realise that you are basing your claims on something that is known to be invalid? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sensei Posted January 23, 2016 Share Posted January 23, 2016 A list says little. "Detection," of any mass of matter supposedly far more distant than the sun is not believable, much less claims that masses of matter have been "detected," orbiting them. We need an audit of all these "sacred," lists. They are not sacred. They simply works. The old way of detecting planet around star is measuring whether star is "shaking". If some massive planet (or other star in binary system, or even black hole, pulsar, neutron star etc) is orbiting around examined star, one attracts other, and center of mass is located outside of center of star. Therefor on images/videos it appears to be shaking. The new way of detecting planet around star is measuring periodical decrease of brightness of star. When planet is between its star, and us, the less light travels from star to our detector. Solar system example of this effect, when Mercury or Venus transit, and cover the Sun: 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted January 23, 2016 Share Posted January 23, 2016 Personal incredulity = 100% correct absolute personal certainty. Success using reason to refute it is improbable, since it was never used in the first place. This is a personally deployed anti-knowledge defense, designed to justify all the hours spent on popsci instead of studying in school, in my experience. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MigL Posted January 23, 2016 Share Posted January 23, 2016 Does the fact that, if you tie a string to a ball, and spin it around in an 'orbit' without it ever colliding with you, also imply the existence of a Creator ? The string is taut, implying it is 'pulling' the ball in an analogous fashion to gravity, so we are essentially modelling gravity. Where does the need for a Creator come in ? Please explain Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B. John Jones Posted January 23, 2016 Author Share Posted January 23, 2016 (edited) Objects do indeed collide and we see this all the time in astronomy and observational cosmology. These are the exceptions, which is part of my point. The only viable explanation for a highly ordered universe in which every object is magnetic to every other object, while the proportion of collisions to objects in harmony is still infinitesimally slight, is art. And art requires an artist. But is is not exactly harmonious! Exactly. Art. Again, the fact that we have stable orbits and know how to mathematically describe them does not imply a God. The only possible mathematical descriptions are relative to a local, assumed, enclosed system which implies a great degree of ambiguity, especially in light of the vastness of the universe and the inconsistencies between the way things are (harmonious, orbital members of the universe) and the the apparent inertia of the same things (inclined to collide due to gravity). Yes, I suppose there is. So what? AJB was charging that my position requires an intimate knowledge about detection of objects in the stellar atmosphere, which is not the case if such correlation exists. Should I strive to be an expert of every field of science? Not when such correlations do indeed exist. Why? This sounds much more like argument from personal incredulity than science. I'm arguing without perfect faith in human reason. You're arguing without faith beyond human reason. Yet another example of the logical fallacy known as argument from personal incredulity. Do you realise that you are basing your claims on something that is known to be invalid? Tell me, how do you personally know about the nature of the stars? Edited January 23, 2016 by swansont fix quote tags Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Cuthber Posted January 23, 2016 Share Posted January 23, 2016 Tell me, how do you personally know about the nature of the stars? I never said that I did, so that's a straw man argument which is another logical fallacy. Are you aware that trying to support your argument on flawed logic makes you look foolish? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B. John Jones Posted January 23, 2016 Author Share Posted January 23, 2016 They are not sacred. They simply works. The old way of detecting planet around star is measuring whether star is "shaking". If some massive planet (or other star in binary system, or even black hole, pulsar, neutron star etc) is orbiting around examined star, one attracts other, and center of mass is located outside of center of star. Therefor on images/videos it appears to be shaking. The new way of detecting planet around star is measuring periodical decrease of brightness of star. When planet is between its star, and us, the less light travels from star to our detector. Solar system example of this effect, when Mercury or Venus transit, and cover the Sun: Venus-transit-of-the-Sun-June-5-3.jpg Thank you very much. I see that you are careful to learn and to explain the things you have learned. So the question asks, "Is earth, moon and sun unique?" How would you answer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted January 23, 2016 Share Posted January 23, 2016 Thank you very much. I see that you are careful to learn and to explain the things you have learned. So the question asks, "Is earth, moon and sun unique?" How would you answer? No, absolutely not! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B. John Jones Posted January 23, 2016 Author Share Posted January 23, 2016 (edited) Yet another example of the logical fallacy known as argument from personal incredulity. Do you realise that you are basing your claims on something that is known to be invalid? Relative to yours or my very local environment, it is known that the earth is flat. Relative to the universe, it is known that the earth is spherical. What if someone said, "space is a plane?" Personal incredulity = 100% correct absolute personal certainty. Success using reason to refute it is improbable, since it was never used in the first place. This is a personally deployed anti-knowledge defense, designed to justify all the hours spent on popsci instead of studying in school, in my experience. 1) Personal incredulity = 100% personal certainty based 100% on a person's inability or unwillingness to believe. Personal credulity = 100% personal certainty based 100% on premature belief. 2) Reason seeks to understand, and to be understood, not to refute arguments. 3) "Anti-knowledge," is (has always been) comprised of die-hard commitment to preserving modern conventions. Truth and diligence respect conventions, but always questions and challenges them. 4) Actually, while I was at college I studied beyond the point of exhaustion, and my studies following school have been just as persistent (but more enriching, as they should). Does the fact that, if you tie a string to a ball, and spin it around in an 'orbit' without it ever colliding with you, also imply the existence of a Creator ? The string is taut, implying it is 'pulling' the ball in an analogous fashion to gravity, so we are essentially modelling gravity. Where does the need for a Creator come in ? Please explain Someone is holding the string. I never said that I did, so that's a straw man argument which is another logical fallacy. Are you aware that trying to support your argument on flawed logic makes you look foolish? Did I say you said it? Indeed, I would rather be a fool, than to imply to my neighbor that they look like one. ---------- For the record, I am not here to argue. The fact is, any person who is very enthusiastic about the scientific views into nature, and much more enthusiastic about the Jesus-kind of faith, is going to meet primarily with opposition in a scientific forum (except his faith be disguised). Yet I cannot help but to seek dialogue. Edited January 23, 2016 by B. John Jones Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sensei Posted January 23, 2016 Share Posted January 23, 2016 (edited) Thank you very much. I see that you are careful to learn and to explain the things you have learned. Are you presumptuously suggesting that what we learn is not true.. ? There is "knowledge" going from nowhere (f.e."saint books"), with no real value. And there is science. Anybody can repeat experiment by himself/herself. Without audience. Without external person influence. And result being the same. I can tell you how to make antimatter. If you will build device according to my instructions, without any math, or any my influence, it will just work, and produce antimatter, that you will be able to detect. Or see by yourself in other devices, particle detectors.. With fake "knowledge" it would not work. So the question asks, "Is earth, moon and sun unique?" How would you answer? Unique is which sense.. ? Unique mass? Unique configuration of particles? CO (Carbon Oxide) has mass approximately 28 u (or 28 g/mol for 1 mol of them), while N2 (Nitrogen gas) has mass approximately also 28 u (28 g/mol). Are they equal or they are unique? C-12 has 6 protons, and 6 neutrons, N-14 has 7 protons, and 7 neutrons, O-16 has 8 protons, and 8 neutrons. CO has therefor 6+8=14 protons total, and 14 neutrons. While N2 has 7+7=14 protons.. And 7+7=14 neutrons. So their baryon number is also the same. The same quantity of electrons (lepton number the same). Complex systems are always unique. Unique even in every nanosecond. Unique even in every picosecond. You at time t, and at time t+1 ns (nanosecond), are different. Very little, but different. Edited January 24, 2016 by Sensei Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Cuthber Posted January 23, 2016 Share Posted January 23, 2016 (edited) Relative to yours or my very local environment, it is known that the earth is flat. Relative to the universe, it is known that the earth is spherical. What if someone said, "space is a plane?" Did I say you said it? OK, for a start, no, it's not. I live on a fairly steep hill.But that's irrelevant anyway. What you said was "Tell me, how do you personally know about the nature of the stars?" And you said it in direct response to me saying "Yet another example of the logical fallacy known as argument from personal incredulity. Do you realise that you are basing your claims on something that is known to be invalid?" The way you said it implies that it's a rebuttal of some sort- that my point would only be valid if I somehow knew about the stars. Well, that's simply wrong too. The best interpretation for you saying "Tell me, how do you personally know about the nature of the stars?" is that it's just some irrelevant words you typed. Do you think that makes you look any less foolish than the clearly illogical arguments you have put forward in earlier posts? BTW I'm not implying that you are a fool. I'm stating outright that your posts make you look foolish. Edited January 23, 2016 by John Cuthber Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MigL Posted January 23, 2016 Share Posted January 23, 2016 But the other end of the string is being 'held' by the ball ( since the forces are equal in either direction ). So the ball is the Creator ???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts