Earth, Moon, Sun

[John Cuthber]

I assumed you had tied the end of the string to a rock. The rock is the creator of the universe.

[swansont]

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.

No, they are not exceptions. The earth collides with many things every day. The moon carries with it the evidence of many collisions. These are not exactly rare events

 

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.

So you won't explain what correlation you think exists and why you think it's meaningful?

 

The correlation I can think of is that they are both indirect measurements. So what?

 

I'm arguing without perfect faith in human reason.

You're arguing without faith beyond human reason.

No, you're making stuff up and making claims without supporting reason or facts.

[B. John Jones]

I just observed that Moses, having written about the moon, over 3,400 years ago, betrays a remarkable phenomenon. At Genesis 1:16 Moses writes, "God made two great lights—the larger one to govern the day, and the smaller one to govern the night. He also made the stars."

 

Now the fact is irrefutable that the face of the moon visible at night has constant concourse with the sun, and with the earth's dawn and dusk, and with that part of the earth obscured from direct sunlight by the shadow of night. The domain of the moon is over the dome of night (the height of the moon), which is arguably negligible relative to the sun's domain of day, which permeates infinitesimally close to 100% of the "solar system."

 

If we admit Moses' and Scriptural precept, then the moon's authority over the earth would be subject to the authority of the sun, which would confirm this constant concourse between the three, the moon having constant concourse not only with the earth's darkness, but always mediate between the earth and the sun.

 

I think that a very pertinent question for this topic would be, "do any of the terrestrial satellites of the 8 planets in our solar system maintain constant concourse between the particular planet's dome of night and the light of the sun, as does earth's moon?"

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

 

thread on the verge of being locked - either the topic turns towards science and away from bald assertions and meaningless waffle or we will close it down.

 

Do not respond to this moderation. Do base arguments on accepted science, objective observations, and valid logic.

 

 

 

[swansont]

I just observed that Moses, having written about the moon, over 3,400 years ago, betrays a remarkable phenomenon. At Genesis 1:16 Moses writes, "God made two great lights—the larger one to govern the day, and the smaller one to govern the night. He also made the stars."

 

Now the fact is irrefutable that the face of the moon visible at night has constant concourse with the sun, and with the earth's dawn and dusk, and with that part of the earth obscured from direct sunlight by the shadow of night. The domain of the moon is over the dome of night (the height of the moon), which is arguably negligible relative to the sun's domain of day, which permeates infinitesimally close to 100% of the "solar system."

 

If we admit Moses' and Scriptural precept, then the moon's authority over the earth would be subject to the authority of the sun, which would confirm this constant concourse between the three, the moon having constant concourse not only with the earth's darkness, but always mediate between the earth and the sun.

 

Not exactly sure what your use of concourse is supposed to man, but the answer would be no. The moon is not always visible at night; at the new moon it's completely on the same side of the earth as the sun. The amount of light reflected off of the moon at night depends on its phase. It is certainly not constant. And there are also eclipses. Consider your "irrefutable fact" refuted.

 

I think that a very pertinent question for this topic would be, "do any of the terrestrial satellites of the 8 planets in our solar system maintain constant concourse between the particular planet's dome of night and the light of the sun, as does earth's moon?"

They all behave similar to the moon with regard to reflecting light. The amount would depend on the albedo and distance to the sun.

[B. John Jones]

Are you presumptuously suggesting that what we learn is not true.. ?

 

Actually, I was just trying to express genuine gratitude for your sincerity and willingness to share what you've obviously been diligent to learn in science. Your illustrations were very useful and clear.

 

 

OK, for a start, no, it's not. I live on a fairly steep hill.But that's irrelevant anyway.

 

When you stand upright where you are very locally, the earth is flat where you stand. That's what I meant by "very local."

 

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.

 

Your statement, "Yet another example of logical fallacy . . ." refers to my statement that:

 

 

 

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.

 

When I asked, "Tell me, how do you personally know about the nature of the stars?" I was not basing my argument for a unique earth-moon-sun system on detection of masses near very distant stars being unbelievable. I was justifying my use of time not in hot pursuit of learning about activity near very distant stars or pouring over lists of said presumed activities.

 

It's not a straw man fallacy because I wasn't arguing any of my points on that basis. I was just precluding a necessity of exploring a certain area of vast fields of knowledge.

 

BTW I'm not implying that you are a fool. I'm stating outright that your posts make you look foolish.

 

Understood. I would rather be a fool than imply that someone looks like one. 1 Cor. 4:10--https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+cor+4%3A10&version=NIV

 

 

But the other end of the string is being 'held' by the ball ( since the forces are equal in either direction ).

 

Not really. The forces are inertia and momentum. The energy is the centrifugal system. A centrifugal system of ball and string would be kept in motion by a living being, as are the motions of earth, moon, sun and satellites, near and far.

 

No, they are not exceptions. The earth collides with many things every day. The moon carries with it the evidence of many collisions. These are not exactly rare events

With what? Water molecules and particles in the atmosphere? Those are mixtures, not collisions.

 

So you won't explain what correlation you think exists and why you think it's meaningful?

 

The fact that very minute conclusions are drawn about very piecemeal substances such as atoms, elements and molecules--objects structured very much like the stellar atmospheres, as distant in space before the decimal as these piecemeal elements after the decimal.

 

No, you're making stuff up and making claims without supporting reason or facts.

 

I'm arriving at educated conclusions. People are afraid to challenge convention.

Edited January 24, 2016 by B. John Jones

[ajb]

B. John Jones, as a member of this forum, I can say that we like to discuss science here. You seem to simply be preaching based on some religious preconceptions. So far, you have not really brought anything to the table, other than a clear sense that you want to preach. Please save it for your Church and stop subjecting us to it.

 

Now, several other people have expressed the same answer as I on your opening question 'Is the Earth, Moon and Sun system special or unique?' I will reiterate myself.

 

i) The laws of physics seem to be universal and we do not seem to occupy a privileged position in the Universe (on the scales of galaxies). Thus we have no reason to think that there are not Earth-like planets around other stars in our galaxy and indeed other galaxies.

ii) We have actually detected many extrasolar planets and recent technological improvements have meant we have detected small rocky extrasolar planets. the Earth-like planet Kepler-438b was only discovered in January 2015, so clearly the science is continuing.

 

We know that the Moon has played a large part in the evolution of life on Earth, and finding large moons of these rocky Earth-like planets would be great. However, I do not see that it is essential to life on these planets, assuming that there is life on some of these planets.

 

In short the answer is no, we do not think that the Earth, Moon and Sun system is unique or particularly special.

 

 

I think that a very pertinent question for this topic would be, "do any of the terrestrial satellites of the 8 planets in our solar system maintain constant concourse between the particular planet's dome of night and the light of the sun, as does earth's moon?"

Phobos and Deimos, for example are visible from most of the surface of Mars.

[B. John Jones]

 

Not exactly sure what your use of concourse is supposed to man, but the answer would be no. The moon is not always visible at night; at the new moon it's completely on the same side of the earth as the sun. The amount of light reflected off of the moon at night depends on its phase. It is certainly not constant. And there are also eclipses. Consider your "irrefutable fact" refuted.

 

Ah! You err my friend! The moon is indeed visible during the night of a new moon, just after the sun sets. Yes the governor of night has it's concourse each night. So the moon has concourse with the sun that night, and also with the earth, as a good governor should.

----------

 

For the record, the requirements that would mostly be questioned for the "Speculations" forum, which I have indeed kept, primarily include:

 

When these claims are presented as precedent to theory, they are a "collection of some thoughts brought on by recent posts and posters," as defined in the moderator's pinned thread, "So you've got a new theory."

Also defined there:

1. You have to back your statements up with evidence.

 

For example,

The moon is indeed visible during the night of a new moon, just after the sun sets. So the moon has concourse with the sun [each] night, and also with the earth, as a good governor should.

2. If nothing will convince you your viewpoint is wrong, you aren't doing science. That's religion.

 

 

OP: This requires clarification. In other words, is there a mandate that a poster conform only when the majority is in agreement? And if the majority rejects every evidence of say, extra-natural governance of the natural world, isn't that a breach of science as defined here?

3. All theories are of limited scope. Just because a theory does not address some point you want it to does not automatically mean it's wrong.

 

OP: This applies most directly to the original poster's opponents.

4. If you want to be taken seriously, you have to address criticism of your viewpoint.

 

Lord knows, I've tried!

Edited January 24, 2016 by B. John Jones

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

 

OK - this is mystical nonsense which neither tallies with the evidence around us nor with the science we use to investigate the natural world.

 

You may wish to promote your religious agenda of some mythical creator or prime mover; but we do not give house room to that. If you wish to discuss religion - in a non-preaching and non-proselytizing manner - you may do so in the Religion forum but not in the main science fora nor in Speculations.

 

Do not respond to this moderation. This post can be reported if members feel the decision is unfair