In the Beginning...

[timtofly]

What ? I thought I asked an easy question.

Yes, no one was there. No, that thought was not around when I wrote that post.

Some points are even too obvious for me to point out. If one is going to hold to the strictest accepted scientific method, they have every right to point out what is and what is not science. More than likely, nothing I post will prevent scientist from claiming things about the past and calling it "scientific truth"

How did I confuse them? Yes, the moon originated at the asteroid belt too.

I thought the moon came from an impact after the earth had already formed? As in much after. The asteroid belt is not a "crash zone", but a place where material was left over from the initial formation event.

 

[Berzerker]

The moon resulted from a large impact 4.45-5 bya. We had surface water by 4.4 bya. "Creation" occurred later, maybe 4.0-1 bya. Thats when the Earth (and moon) acquired a new orbit closer to the sun.

 

[timtofly]

What caused the pair to change orbital positions?

 

[Agent327]

Seriously, don't feed him. He's been on the same trail since page 1.

Some more nonsense today:

Draw a line with the sun at left and Earth close by to the right (the ecliptic). Extend that line outward and mark Saturn slightly above and below the ecliptic. Draw another line from the sun inclined by 17.2 degrees out to Pluto. Now draw a line between Saturn and Pluto. That angle is ~26 degrees, Saturn's equatorial plane (its ring system) points to Pluto. It's possible we might soon detect and recognize a trail of rock leading from Saturn to Pluto.

No, it's not. And you forgot about the infinite amount of lines that also extend from any circle. In short: circles don't point anywhere. That's because they're round, you see. and any circle consists of an infinite amount of points. It's the points that can point somewhere. Pretty basic geometry you seem to have missed out on.

Some slightly older nonsense:

a circle becomes a line edge on

Circles don't 'become' anything. Ask any geometry teacher. A circle is a line. A round line. Did you never follow any geometry class period?

She has a name and it aint nobody

I think you missed the point... by about a mile.

Maybe one did... Other than the Earth being here what evidence do we have it actually formed here? Our water came from out there. And if the world formed in the presence of its water then it formed out there too.

You have two ifs vs one fact. I'd go with the fact. (But then, I'm not a Berzerker.)

How did I confuse them? Yes, the moon originated at the asteroid belt too.

Easy. While there is some evidence to suggest that the material making up the moon may have formed at the asteroid belt (this is how scientists formulate), there is zero evidence Earth did. Only a Berzerkerwould then conclude: 'the Earth formed at the asteroid belt' (the option for which there is zero evidence).

I interpreted this statement to infer that there were no facts (as you seem to use the term fact) in the entire thread. I.e. "there is no truth here folks".

I didn't even mention the word truth. Unlike science it's meaning varies. often with the speaker. And facts can be found everywhere.

Just two straw men hugging each other.

Which is a meaningless phrase. But you thought: It sounds nice, let's write it down?

The point about what the term fact really is has become an issue. It used to be a fact was true or false.

Something which isn't true, isn't a fact. It really is that simple.

 

[Acken]

Draw a line with the sun at left and Earth close by to the right (the ecliptic). Extend that line outward and mark Saturn slightly above and below the ecliptic. Draw another line from the sun inclined by 17.2 degrees out to Pluto. Now draw a line between Saturn and Pluto. That angle is ~26 degrees, Saturn's equatorial plane (its ring system) points to Pluto. It's possible we might soon detect and recognize a trail of rock leading from Saturn to Pluto.

Ill need some MSpaint because what you said made little sense to me considering planets move.

 

[El_Machinae]

Draw a line with the sun at left and Earth close by to the right (the ecliptic). Extend that line outward and mark Saturn slightly above and below the ecliptic. Draw another line from the sun inclined by 17.2 degrees out to Pluto. Now draw a line between Saturn and Pluto. That angle is ~26 degrees, Saturn's equatorial plane (its ring system) points to Pluto. It's possible we might soon detect and recognize a trail of rock leading from Saturn to Pluto.

I don't fully get the description, but it really really reads like you're suggesting that non-parallel planes eventually intersect. All orbits point at Pluto

 

[Leoreth]

I don't fully get the description, but it really really reads like you're suggesting that non-parallel planes eventually intersect. All orbits point at Pluto

That's even more proof!

 

[timtofly]

Seriously, don't feed him. He's been on the same trail since page 1.
Easy. While there is some evidence to suggest that the material making up the moon may have formed at the asteroid belt (this is how scientists formulate), there is zero evidence Earth did. Only a Berzerkerwould then conclude: 'the Earth formed at the asteroid belt' (the option for which there is zero evidence).

That is the problem though with trying to use science to figure out the past. Then you have to decide which scientific theories you want to go with. The latest models taking the "make up" of the moon, and running 100's of simulations, show that the moon is part of the earth that was ejected from an impact. This impact was a mars size planet that could have formed in the asteroid belt, but then you have to move it from there to hit the earth, so you are back to either the earth changed orbits, or this planet that hit the earth changed orbits. If either changed orbits, why not both? If you state the "moon" did form there, then you have not been updated on the latest "findings" or outright reject them. The moon is not the object that hit the earth. That object is now part of the earth, and the moon used to be part of the earth that resulted from the impact, as earth's mantle was ejected. In fact some theorize that there were two moons, and that one of them eventually hit the other one, making one larger moon. That is from your so called scientific scholarly work being done today.

Posting in this thread "feeds" him.....

I didn't even mention the word truth. Unlike science it's meaning varies. often with the speaker. And facts can be found everywhere.

Something which isn't true, isn't a fact. It really is that simple.

You don't have to mention truth, it is built into the definition of a fact and the way it is used as part of human thinking.

If a fact cannot be "a lie", then no human on earth can tell a lie. Every statement of fact (according to you) is a truth. There is a thing called "fact" checking. Why bother if every fact is true?

So truths very, ie some truths are lies, but we will call them true, because it is based on the person, and not actual facts? See the problem???? You just claimed that only science knows what is a true fact.

 

[Leoreth]

It's called fact checking because you check if something is a fact. Your grasp on simple definitions is weak as usual.

 

[timtofly]

It's called fact checking because you check if something is a fact. Your grasp on simple definitions is weak as usual.

To see if it is true or not. It is not see if a truth is a fact.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Draw a line with the sun at left and Earth close by to the right (the ecliptic). Extend that line outward and mark Saturn slightly above and below the ecliptic. Draw another line from the sun inclined by 17.2 degrees out to Pluto. Now draw a line between Saturn and Pluto. That angle is ~26 degrees, Saturn's equatorial plane (its ring system) points to Pluto. It's possible we might soon detect and recognize a trail of rock leading from Saturn to Pluto.

Well... this explanation is rather unclear, but if I interpreted it correctly then my calculations show (and they may be wrong of course) that the angle between the ecliptic and the line joining Saturn to Pluto can only ever be a maximum of 24.3 degrees. But as both planets are constantly moving, this varies and can go as low as 13.3 degrees (well... zero degrees actually... maybe I need to draw diagrams. Actually, maybe YOU need to draw diagrams). I also had a quick google to try and find out the relative axes of the planes of Saturn's rings and Pluto's orbit, but wasn't able to find anything. I suppose it's possible that, at the configuration that gives the maximum 24.3 degree angle, the plane of the rings is close to parallel to the line between the two planets, but it's clearly not going to be an exact correlation. And even if it were there would be no reason to believe it was anything more than a brief, rare, transitory coincidence.

 

[Agent327]

That is the problem though with trying to use science to figure out the past. Then you have to decide which scientific theories you want to go with.

Really? FWIW, trying to figure out the past without science usually gives a lot of gibberish. Von Däniken style.

The latest models taking the "make up" of the moon, and running 100's of simulations, show that the moon is part of the earth that was ejected from an impact. This impact was a mars size planet that could have formed in the asteroid belt, but then you have to move it from there to hit the earth, so you are back to either the earth changed orbits, or this planet that hit the earth changed orbits. If either changed orbits, why not both? If you state the "moon" did form there, then you have not been updated on the latest "findings" or outright reject them. The moon is not the object that hit the earth. That object is now part of the earth, and the moon used to be part of the earth that resulted from the impact, as earth's mantle was ejected. In fact some theorize that there were two moons, and that one of them eventually hit the other one, making one larger moon. That is from your so called scientific scholarly work being done today.

There are actually some facts in this paragraph.

The Moon is thought to have formed about 4.5 billion years ago, not long after Earth. There are several hypotheses for its origin; the most widely accepted explanation is that the Moon formed from the debris left over after a giant impact between Earth and a Mars-sized body called Theia.

Posting in this thread "feeds" him.....

Interesting claim. Not true though, this is actually the second thread he started on the very same subject. Oddly, his position in between has changed as little as it has on this second thread.

You don't have to mention truth, it is built into the definition of a fact and the way it is used as part of human thinking.

The latter part doesn't quite follow. Human thinking is made up of a whole more than just facts.

 

[Berzerker]

What caused the pair to change orbital positions?

The collisions at the asteroid belt, the Earth moved here with the Moon in tow

I don't fully get the description, but it really really reads like you're suggesting that non-parallel planes eventually intersect. All orbits point at Pluto

Not orbits, equatorial planes... Only Saturn's points to Pluto's perihelion above the ecliptic

Well... this explanation is rather unclear, but if I interpreted it correctly then my calculations show (and they may be wrong of course) that the angle between the ecliptic and the line joining Saturn to Pluto can only ever be a maximum of 24.3 degrees. But as both planets are constantly moving, this varies and can go as low as 13.3 degrees (well... zero degrees actually... maybe I need to draw diagrams. Actually, maybe YOU need to draw diagrams). I also had a quick google to try and find out the relative axes of the planes of Saturn's rings and Pluto's orbit, but wasn't able to find anything. I suppose it's possible that, at the configuration that gives the maximum 24.3 degree angle, the plane of the rings is close to parallel to the line between the two planets, but it's clearly not going to be an exact correlation. And even if it were there would be no reason to believe it was anything more than a brief, rare, transitory coincidence.

There is a small range since Saturn orbits ~2.5 degrees above and below the ecliptic, the angle to Pluto increases when Saturn is below the ecliptic.

 

[El_Machinae]

Not orbits, equatorial planes... Only Saturn's points to Pluto's perihelion above the ecliptic

A drawing would really clarify what you were talking about.

 

[Acken]

We re never going to get a drawing.

 

[Berzerker]

A drawing would really clarify what you were talking about.

I dont know how to post a drawing

draw a line from the sun beyond saturn
draw another from saturn to pluto's perihelion
the angle is ~26 degrees

 

[El_Machinae]

Why am I drawing a line from the Sun to Saturn?

 

[Manfred Belheim]

You're really not writing clear enough instructions. Surely this isn't your own theory/discovery, so can't you post a link to somewhere that explains what you're saying online?

 

[timtofly]

The collisions at the asteroid belt, the Earth moved here with the Moon in tow.

No one claims two planets formed in the Asteroid belt. Some even claim, some of Jupiter's and Saturn's moon came from there. Not to mention, your creation source claims the earth was split in parts, not increased in mass. There was enough material to give the earth and moon their current shape and size, but does not explain how they changed orbit. While the impact forced the moon away, there was hardly enough force to change orbits. The other planet had to be from further out, not formed in the same orbital zone.

 

[Berzerker]

Why am I drawing a line from the Sun to Saturn?

So you can draw another line from Saturn to Pluto to create a ~26 degree angle representing Saturn's equatorial plane (rings)

You're really not writing clear enough instructions. Surely this isn't your own theory/discovery, so can't you post a link to somewhere that explains what you're saying online?

I know... But its basically just 2 lines, one to establish Saturn's orbit around the sun and another to extend Saturn's tilted equator up to Pluto. I used the ecliptic because those numbers were readily available. Sitchin's theory is that Pluto was a satellite of Saturn, so I put their orbits on paper and found Saturn's equatorial plane does indeed point to Pluto at/near perihelion. Both planets currently share ascending nodes and subtracting Saturn's distance from the sun (~10 au) from Pluto's extremes (~49-29 au) creates a 2:1 ratio.

No one claims two planets formed in the Asteroid belt. Some even claim, some of Jupiter's and Saturn's moon came from there. Not to mention, your creation source claims the earth was split in parts, not increased in mass. There was enough material to give the earth and moon their current shape and size, but does not explain how they changed orbit. While the impact forced the moon away, there was hardly enough force to change orbits. The other planet had to be from further out, not formed in the same orbital zone.

The proto-Earth and Theia (?) formed there, they collided in a low energy impact ~4.45-5 bya and the result was the Moon. Yes, the Enuma Elish describes Heaven and Earth as two halves of a flatfish. So it is interesting the link I posted suggests the original belt was about the mass of the Earth. Researchers have argued a planet didn't form there because the asteroids currently lack the mass. Kinda surprised professionals would make such a simple mistake. But the impactors striking the world during "creation" (the late heavy bombardment) were high energy in comparison.