So what? Everything we study and consider need not "fall within the remit of science." Got any pictures of your grandchildren? Sorry. They don't fall under the remit of science. Let's only talk science, k?
What keeps the earth orbiting around the sun? What keeps the moon orbiting "around" the earth? I put "orbiting" in quotation marks because the moon does not circle the earth. It makes an S shaped trajectory roughly paralleling the earth's ellipse.
I don’t have a stake in convincing him one way or the other. People take comfort in their frame of belief reference when they can either convince you of their position or figure an angle where they can claim they have stumped you when they give you and example you can’t explain. I have no problem saying I don’t know an answer... I have a series of questions I don’t have an answer for now which drives some of the research I am free (now retired) to do now. I probably will never stop with my questions...the more I learn the more I have. But, I also post for others monitoring the discussions and figure they can watch a debate and judge for themselves ...or, decide to do their own search for answers. Back in the 80’s, when teaching Archaeology, I did a course which was basically one of developing critical thinking skills, where I debunked many of the Eric Von Daniken claims in his book, the Chariot of the Gods, of supposed evidence for extraterrestrial influence in places like Palenque and Teotihuacan in Mexico... evidence of which I had first hand knowledge, and, in the case of relief subjects at Pakal’s burial chamber, a relief he cited as evidence of space travel, from Palenque’s temple of the inscriptions, have been since translated in their entirety further debunking Von Daniken’s claims. Such claims as those made by Von Daniken and those challenging the role of natural selection in the diversity of species observed today are based on making claims many people are il equipped to challenge; peruse the internet, it is full of the claims of many selling the various claims of ‘secrete’ truth and ‘evidence’ of conspiracies of everything from time travel coverups, UFO bases in the Antarctic, and who killed Roger Rabbit. Hell, I still believe in Santa... my problem is, I am always on the wrong list.
You haven't answered the question but anyway that is not how gravitational forces work. The moon does not orbit the Earth, any two masses orbit a point called the barycentre
You missed the point that if two disparate masses did not intrinsically know their respective masses and distances, they could not attract each other as the sun and earth do. The barycenter of the earth and moon is 1,710 kilometers beneath the surface of the earth. So the moon does indeed orbit the earth, at the barycenter.
Lol. They don't know the other's masses (intrinsically or not)! Every mass's gravitational field is constant irrespective of what other masses are in its gravitational field. A pair of masses orbit each other both orbiting the barycentre. Each mass is falling towards the other's centre of mass, the net gravitational vector giving rise to the barycentre
"Gravitational field" is your way of saying what I said. And no, it is NOT "constant." It is the inverse of the square of the distance to the other mass. How far outward does the "gravitational field" extend? Take your time and LOL all the way. I have no more interest in your little games. ciao
Constant, as in the field does not change irrespective of what other masses are within the mass's "infinite" sphere of influence. Correcting facts is not little games. Ciao
It does if we are discussing it in what is purportedly a science thread And again this is (or was) supposed to be a science thread. If you want to discuss grandchildren or photography or whatever start a thread about those topics in the appropriate part of the forum.
Masses have no idea of how massive others are. Each mass exerts a gravitational attraction on another based on its own mass. Why masses attract one another is a mystery. What caused the big bang is also a mystery. But the point is that both gravity and the big bang are explanations for observable phenomena. You can accept it or reject it but, if you reject it, common sense says you should offer up another explanation. Otherwise the rest of us will accept the explanations. An explanation is not required but is the basis for the scientific method. Yes science progresses and changes. Yes criticism of a consensus is very scientific. But consensus is a stronger truth than the lack of one. The consensus for evolution is just as overwhelming as the consensus for relativity. You are in a tiny minority and have no alternative for evolution so your argument falls on deaf ears. Progress will require an alternative explanation. In the meantime, evolution remains supreme.
"Science advances one funeral at a time." - Max Planck Provide your "scientific explanation" for why we are here.
Why should he when, despite being asked on several occasions you have repeatedly declined to do the same thing yourself. So go ahead then do it now. What is your 'scientific' explanation for why we are here?
Science says that orbits are the result of motion and gravity. Would you like to suggest another reason?
Have you considered the implausible suggestion that orbits, lunar, solar, etc, are all 'billions of years old!'? Decay rates, collisions, magnetic and gravitational forces, have all been unaccounted for, for billions of years? The moon is drifting out, and had this gone on for 'billions of years!', it could not have been here, unless acted upon by some other force. Tides, atmospheric gases, solar flares.. lots of factors to fight through to keep the perfect orbit for life on this planet. Add to that the measured half life of the earth (or the dynamo theory, if you prefer), and the huge amounts of time needed for universal common ancestry just isn't there. Tens of thousands, not millions and billions, fits the scientific model better, but that conflicts with the religious beliefs of atheistic naturalism..
What is your scientific evidence to support your assertion that the earth is only tens of thousands of years old? Be sure to cite the peer reviewed evidence that has proven current dating methods are incorrect.
Implausible in what way? Yes, the moon gets further from the earth at a rate of approximately 3.8cm per year. That figure and your calculator may provide an idea of how large the moon's orbit will be in the future. I have no idea how large the original orbit of the moon was when the solar system was forming but an astronomer might know The dynamo theory explains why some planets, including our own maintain magnetic fields. I can't image what that has to do with the moon's orbit. I don't know what you mean by universal common ancestry. Perhaps you can explain. The age of the universe and solar system has been calculated based on observations and measurements. If you have different measurements than the astronomers have you can certainly present them. You should present them to the astronomical community as well since they would be more interested in them than I am.
The leading hypothesis is that the moon was created about 4.5B years ago in a collision between earth and a body about the size of Mars.
As an explanation fro the presence of Homo Sapiens, the first three chapters of Genesis are far more reasonable than the ToE. You're welcome.
YGuy, as I have stated previously to Chem the problem you have is that Creationism is simply not a scientifically valid theory. By which I mean science is not equipped to assess it, it simply doesn't have the tools to do so. If you accept a strict, literal interpretation of Genesis then there is literally no way any scientist, anywhere will ever be able to validate or disprove it. There is no set of scientific observations or measurements and no experimental design that can ever be created which will confirm or refute Creationism. (BTW the multiverse theory of quantum mechanics has exactly the same problem which is why it is not widely considered credible). So as an explanation for the existence of the universe and life on Earth Creationism literally gives scientists nothing to work with. And for that reason as I have said to Chem many times - it is not science. In fact it is actually unfair to ask scientist to discuss Creationism as a scientific theory because they will literally be flying blind if they try. And please note the use of 'prove or disprove' - true science by default is not biased against any theory. Come up with a way, any way for scientists to objectively test Creationism as a scientific theory and someone would do it. The question for Creationists is how????? None ever seem to have an answer. And please note debunking Evolution is NOT a way to prove Creationism as so many Creationists seem to believe. Even if this were to happen (and the chances of that are unlikely in the extreme) all that does is disprove current Evolutionary Theory thereby forcing science to replace it a newer, more valid scientific theory. Disproving one theory does NOT automatically confirm another. You are still left struggling with finding a way to scientifically confirm Creationism - how??? Science and philosophy/religion are literally two sides of the same coin. They both seek answers to important questions but they use different tool sets that are not interchangeable. So search for the answers to great religious questions in religion and leave science to try and work out why the hell gravity does not seem to work the way we expect it to on a galactic scale.
You and your Atheist Talking Point friends are hung up on this "scientific" fetish. *Science* is no more the Magical Mysterium than Darwin's Magic Wand of Selection is. I'll tell you why we are here since you seem to have no idea and proffer no *scientific* reason therefor. We are here BECAUSE Nature's God, as named in the Declaration of Independence of the United States, created us to love Him and each other. This is the ultimate truth. You cannot do better. God is love. How do you *scientifically* describe love? You don't. Atheists in fact revel in the opposite, in hate. The most infamous atheist on earth, Richard Dawkins, says so himself. "Evolutionists hate creationists." "Anyone who doesn't believe in evolution is either ignorant, stupid, insane, or wicked, though I'd rather not believe that myself." Dawkins' "science" is absurd, laughable. "A1>A2 and B1>B2." "A monkey could type all of Shakespeare." "A marble statue could wave its arm at you." Oh please.
Like so many followers of Richard Dawkins, you are CONSUMED by your Magical Word, "science." You people really need to read David Berlinski's book, The Devil's Delusion- Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions. Arguing against Darwin's 1859 tautology IS SCIENCE! You simply always have to go Bible-thumping and bring the Bible into critiques of his tautology. That is anti-science of YOU, not everyone you malign and criticize. Nor will you ever change. Your claim that the "tools are not interchangeable" overlooks the Holy Bible from the First Book's First Chapter's First Sentence: "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." It was science, plain and simple, written 2,000 years before *science* had a clue. The Devil's Delusion page xi I am a secular Jew. My religious education did not take. I cannot pray. The greater part of the debate over Darwin’s theory is not in service to the facts. Nor to the theory. The facts are unforthcoming. And the theory is unpersuasive. “Darwin?” a Nobel laureate in biology once remarked to me over his bifocals. “That’s just the party line.” “The relationships between major groups within an emergent new class of biological entities… do not seem to fit the tree pattern that, following Darwin’s original proposal, remains the dominant description of biological evolution.” – Eugene Koonin, 2007, “The Biological Big Bang Model for the Major Transitions in Evolution” – p 192
