[_ Old Earth _] Universe shouldn't exist

[agua.]

There's already all sorts of proof of God. All you really have to do it to step outside your front door and glance around. He created this beautiful creation, it's awesome. Too bad we ruined it. Big bang theory they call that one. You don't something from nothing unless you're God. I think there was a big bang. When God spoke. Then it went bang, into existence. I'm not being facetious either.Even the scientist said that in the video. Explosions destroy not create. Explosions blow up and out, not together. If it was a normal explosion then the planets would be in a different order than they are with the bigger planets in close and the smaller planets out there far.

Hey brother, what do you think about the asteroid belt? (I think it used to be a big planet and was destroyed, probably by God for some reason)

I don't know what the asteroid belt is but I spose it could be debri from collissions like when the moon was formed. It could also be accreted matter slowly forming new planets too I think maybe Barbarian has a better idea.

 

[Barbarian]

The asteroid belt has enough material to make a small planet, but the gravity of Jupiter disrupts any tendency of the asteroids to come together to form one.

 

[Edward]

The asteroid belt has enough material to make a small planet, but the gravity of Jupiter disrupts any tendency of the asteroids to come together to form one.

That's kind of what I was thinking. If you look at a map of the solar system, the planets are somewhat evenly spaced throughout, except for right at the asteroid belt, where's a bunch of debris instead of a planet. Maybe there used to be a planet there?

 

[Barbarian]

Not a long as Jupiter was there; gravitational herding keeps it from forming a planet. But here's a little mathematical surprise.

Make series like this:

Start with 0. Add 3 for the next number. Then double each number to find the next.

0, 3, 6, 12, 24, 48, 96, 192, 384

Then add 4 to each one.

4,7,10,16,28,52, 100, 196, 388,

Then divide by 10.
0.4, 0.7, 1.0, 1.6. 2.8, 5.2, 10.0, 19.6, 38.8

The distance of various bodies from the sun, in astronomical units:
Mercury 0.39
Venus 0.72
Earth 1.00
Mars 1.53
Asteroid Belt 2.77 (Ceres)
Jupiter 5.20
Saturn 9.54
Uranus 19.2
Neptune 30.6

Similar relationships seem hold for moons of the large planets. No one knows why, although theories abound. A more general form of the Titus-Bode Law (Dermott's law) suggests that orbital resonances work for all such systems of planets and moons.

 

[Edward]

Is that a coincidence brought about by a random big bang?

 

[Barbarian]

Some think it's a coincidence, but it appears to be the result of physical laws. I have no idea what a "random big bang" might be. One Muslim creationist thinks it's proof that Islam is correct, but his reasoning seems a bit strained to me.

 

[agua.]

Some think it's a coincidence, but it appears to be the result of physical laws. I have no idea what a "random big bang" might be. One Muslim creationist thinks it's proof that Islam is correct, but his reasoning seems a bit strained to me.

Why does Neptune deviate more than the others? 30.6 / 38.8 ? These properties are amazing and I agree they're likely the result of physical laws Yahweh imbued matter with. Like how we only see one side of our moon from down here even though it spins on ana axis. etc Cool stuff !

 

[WIP]

Is this true? The moons axial rotation is such that the same surface is always facing the earth? Never knew that.

 

[Edward]

Is this true? The moons axial rotation is such that the same surface is always facing the earth? Never knew that.

Yes, that is true. I'm not really sure how to explain it, it was hard to comprehend for me but they say it's true. This is where we get the saying, dark side of the moon...

Wouldn't it have to spin the opposite direction of earth for it to this, and at just the right speed for it to always have the same side facing us?

 

[TOG]

Yes, that is true. I'm not really sure how to explain it, it was hard to comprehend for me but they say it's true. This is where we get the saying, dark side of the moon...

Wouldn't it have to spin the opposite direction of earth for it to this, and at just the right speed for it to always have the same side facing us?

No, it spins in the same direction. To see how it works, just take two globes or balls, one representing the earth and the other representing the moon, and make one orbit the other and rotate so that the same side is always facing the other ball. If you imagine yourself looking down on the North Pole, then the earth would rotate counter-clockwise and so would the moon for this to work. They say this is because of the effect the earth's gravity has on the moon's rotation, and that the sun will eventually have the same effect on the earth, so that the same side will always face the sun.

The TOG​

 

[Edward]

Oh! Duh, lol That worked good. Thanks brother.

 

[Sparkey]

Not a long as Jupiter was there; gravitational herding keeps it from forming a planet. But here's a little mathematical surprise.

Make series like this:

Start with 0. Add 3 for the next number. Then double each number to find the next.

0, 3, 6, 12, 24, 48, 96, 192, 384

Then add 4 to each one.

4,7,10,16,28,52, 100, 196, 388,

Then divide by 10.
0.4, 0.7, 1.0, 1.6. 2.8, 5.2, 10.0, 19.6, 38.8

...

I've taken classes that have covered similar math 'wonders'. I'd have to look at my class notes but one that I can almost remember spoke of the distribution of any 'random' set of numbers according to first digit.

So if we had a big pile of randomly generated numbers and we sorted them by primary (first) digit we might end with something such as:

Numbers that start with 1: 1,10,11,100,101, 110, 111, 1000, 1001, 1010, 1011, 1100, 1101, 1110, etc.
and then the numbers that started with 2 and so forth...

Then they looked at the proportions where the ones that started with the number one were vastly superior in quantity and that there was a very predictable rate of decline slooping down all the way to the category that had the smallest population: Numbers that begin with 9. And then... we were show how that particular pattern showed up again and again in nature.

There was much more to it but it was quite astounding. Afterwards an explanation was given. I'll have to research to find the whole subject but if I do find it, I'll post a link or a copy of my notes at the least.

 

[agua.]

I've taken classes that have covered similar math 'wonders'. I'd have to look at my class notes but one that I can almost remember spoke of the distribution of any 'random' set of numbers according to first digit.

So if we had a big pile of randomly generated numbers and we sorted them by primary (first) digit we might end with something such as:

Numbers that start with 1: 1,10,11,100,101, 110, 111, 1000, 1001, 1010, 1011, 1100, 1101, 1110, etc.
and then the numbers that started with 2 and so forth...

Then they looked at the proportions where the ones that started with the number one were vastly superior in quantity and that there was a very predictable rate of decline slooping down all the way to the category that had the smallest population: Numbers that begin with 9. And then... we were show how that particular pattern showed up again and again in nature.

There was much more to it but it was quite astounding. Afterwards an explanation was given. I'll have to research to find the whole subject but if I do find it, I'll post a link or a copy of my notes at the least.

Can you suggest Sparrow why the Neptune deviance is so out of whack ?

 

[Sparkey]

No, not me. That's some kind of astro-physics thing and I get stuck trying to fathom retrograde and prograde motion.

View attachment 4625 View attachment 4626

But I did remember a clue for the hunt on what I was talking about. I thought it might have been a class I was taking that explained a very profound mystery but it was on Khan Academy. Sal had a discussion guest and they presented the number pattern I tried to explain (poorly) in Post #133

Oops, that didn't sound right. They explained it well. My attempt to repeat was poor, almost devoid of value. But I'll get the vid and link it and you'll see... it's pretty awesome.

 

[Sparkey]

Okay, got it. The mystery of Benford's Law.
This one has a video so you won't need me to explain. "LUCY! You've got some 'splaining to do..."

Vi and Sal talk about the mysteries of Benford's Law

I've said it often. I'm very comfortable with my "I don't know" position. Part of that comfort comes from the fact that the Lord Provides to me what I need. My most basic needs include feeding my curiosity. For most of my life I've considered myself a knowledge-seeker as a primary part of my 'who-is-me'. I said things like, "I'm a knowledge whore and don't care what the source is." One time a librarian and an instructor heard me say that and asked if they could quote me. I gave permission

But the deal is this. Somehow those things that I need to know are brought to me. I blame God for that little miracle. It takes no effort and all I do is follow where my front tire leads me (a Zen-Motorcycle term). So my motto is: "Such ease!"

If I were to want to direct my thoughts and target something specific like Neptune -- well, that's called "Setting my dogs to hunt..." and then I actively start searching it out. It's still an assisted search (I think angels serve and love this kind of thing) but that is much more aggressive in nature. So far, Neptune is a mystery to me. That's okay. All my needs are supplied.

PS - I know that the Bible symbolically refers to angels as birds but mine don't mind being called dogs -- they know I am very grateful for all the help I can get. Shhhhh.... don't tell people about this. They don't know me well enough to understand. hehehehe....