What is creation science?
- Thread starter Agent327
- Start date
I did give you a range. But once again:
Pluto at its 'highest' point is ~6.3 AU above the sun's equator. (Or 8 AU above the earth's ecliptic
The furthest Saturn goes below the sun's equator is ~1 AU. Or below the earth's ecliptic is ~0.4 AU
Those two points certainly aren't both at their closest approach though. But let's assume they are. Let's also assume that Saturn is at that point at the exact same time as Pluto reaches it, instead of being at some other point of the orbit. Let's also assume that aphelion for Saturn = the solstice, so that the axial tilt it actually in the right direction for what you want. Because if it's not solstice, you might have Pluto be on one plane 27 degrees from Saturn, but it won't be Saturn's equatorial plane.
The horizontal distance between them is never less that 19.5 AU. Let the vertical distance between them be x. So tan (the angle between them) = x/19.5. x = 19.5 * tan 27 = 9.94 AU.
So if everything is exactly right, if you just ignore their actual orbits and place the planets in those orbits yourself in the most advantageous positions, they'd still need 10 AU of vertical distance between them, and they never have more than 7.3.
If everything is exactly right when Pluto reaches that point, the maximum angle between them is less than 21 degrees.
So yeah, your maths is very wrong.
That said, it's actually trivial to prove that there are two points on Saturn's orbit where the equator/rings are pointing to a point on Pluto's orbit. No guarantee that they'll be at that point at the same time though. And it's equally trivial to prove the same thing for any other pair of planets, that every single one has two points where it's equator points at a particular point of another planet's orbit.
Plus, every planet has two points in its orbit where the sun's equator is pointing at it. Must be proof all the planets were ejected from the sun.
Plus, every planet has two points in its orbit where the sun's equator is pointing at it. Must be proof all the planets were ejected from the sun.
But if nobody had telescopes and couldn't see these planets, how would they know there were any more?
It doesn't matter where Democritus traveled. You cannot see Uranus, Neptune, or Pluto from anywhere on Earth with the naked eye. That's why nobody knew about them until after the invention of the telescope.
There are not 6 planets between Earth and the Sun. Not even if you count the Moon, the mythical "Vulcan" that was speculated about as recently as the '70s, when it was in mainstream newspapers that maybe they'd found a planet between Mercury and the Sun (turned out they were wrong), or even the planet Gor (fictional planet made up by a fantasy writer in the 1960s).
There never was a planet in the asteroid belt, unless you count the dwarf planet Ceres, which just received that designation recently.
Look, I was told that God created everything. Everything. So that means that there could not have been anything that existed before God existed, because if there was, where did it come from? For that matter, where did God come from?
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Ancient Babylonian myths and astrology are not even ordinary evidence, never mind extraordinary.
This is Velikovsky-nonsense and absolutely nothing that can be considered real science. The laws of motion existed many billions of years before there was ever a solar system here with life to figure out those laws of motion, so it's irrational to assume that all these mystical aberrations just happened because some Babylonian myth says so.
Berzerker
Deity
Why is that a problem? I dont know who invented the wheel but somebody figured it out. Is that all? Have a nice day
The range you posted was 11-22 or something, that wasn't for Saturn above and below the ecliptic.
Wouldn't that be 8.4? I'll trust my math
What planet does Earth point at?
Maybe God told them
Many people knew about the unseen worlds, the knowledge shows up in their cosmologies and architecture.
There are 6 planets between the Earth and the depth of space, there were 5 before Tiamat was transformed into Heaven and Earth. The four gas giants and an escaped moon from Saturn. You're looking at our position with respect to the Sun, look the other way...and read the enuma elish.
How do you know?
God didn't create the water... I suspect God was the remnants of a nearby supernova that invaded our solar system roughly a 1/2 billion years after the shockwave triggered our nebula. Something flooded our system with a dose of heavy stuff after the planets formed, thats why we're still so hot - we took a direct hit.
Now that's just childish.
You appear to be confusing stars and planets. Some ancient monuments were built in orientation to certain stars and the Sun, not planets that no human ever saw until 1781.
It doesn't work in that direction, either. Earth would be the 4th planet, as far as any ancient Babylonians could ever be aware.
If you put every bit of material in the asteroid belt together to make a planet, there's not enough of it. Jupiter's gravitational influence ensured that no substantially-sized body ever could exist there. Ceres is as big as it gets, and it's not very big.
Oh, I'd love to see the peer-reviewed science articles for this claim! Links, please.
You know, after dodgy science and mistaken recounting of ancient myths have failed you, you have to fall back on “someone told them”, simply to make your hypothesis even begin to hold water. At this juncture, even if everything you have said was absolutely the truth, creationist screed is more plausible than this, simply because it ‘only’ posits an omnipotent creator-deity capable of doing everything mentioned.
Ziggy Stardust
Absolutely Sane
Causing asteroids. Not ALL the asteroids. You know why there's an H in LHB? Why do you think they put it there?
That's right, to contrast it with light asteroid showers, which also carried water. So your theory of shriking timeframes does an ESL (exit stage left).
Not in the case of an Earth which is just forming. No. Water doesn't stand a chance until the emissions from erupting vulcanoes after the Earth cooled quite a bit threw up enough atmosphere for water to remain on Earth.
Still waiting for a scientific article which echoes your ideas. Surely if there was good evidence, people who dedicate their life to such matters will have something to back you up on this one? Would be more credible than: I so want this to be true!
Wheeeee!
brennan
Argumentative Brit
2,000 year old word of mouth? I'm convinced. Chalk me up as a convert.
Ziggy Stardust
Absolutely Sane
The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy looks like a scientific paper compared to this.
This is basically "Ask an Atlanteologist: The Sequel" (except Berzerker hasn't posted any long, boring videos).
Well, Berzerker keeps saying to read the Enuma Elish, so now you can take your pick of your sources. This open letter also makes for interesting reading.
GAH!!! 
One pseudoscience believer calling another pseudoscience believer a liar?
As for this Enuma Elish thing, I read about a bunch of gods, but not a lot of creating the universe. And there are a lot of convenient gaps where lines are missing or unintelligible, which means people are free to make up anything.
Extraordinary evidence, this stuff definitely is not.
One pseudoscience believer calling another pseudoscience believer a liar?
As for this Enuma Elish thing, I read about a bunch of gods, but not a lot of creating the universe. And there are a lot of convenient gaps where lines are missing or unintelligible, which means people are free to make up anything.
Extraordinary evidence, this stuff definitely is not.
timtofly
One Day
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2009
- Messages
- 9,445
Modern technology is not that extraordinary either. Why do humans keep using that word? It seems ordinary for me that modern humans call ancient humans liars. Something that will never be proven, so they get off the extraordinary claim hook, but really? That is some claim to make about an unknown.
It is probably just useless information falling on skeptical senses.
It is probably just useless information falling on skeptical senses.
When Pluto is at this magical point of yours, Saturn might be at its closest approach to that point. It might also be halfway around the solar system. Which gives you that range. Only takes basic trig.
Wouldn't that be 8.4? I'll trust my math
No. It should be easy enough to work out why it would be 7.3 and not 8.4
And, as I said, your maths is flat out wrong. Your ancient aliens book said pluto was ejected from Saturn, so then you went looking for coincidences to point at. And using simply incorrect maths, you came up with a coincidence that doesn't even exist. You 'discovered' this amzing bit of evidence 10 years ago. Why are you the only person to have noticed this, ever? Why hasn't it made it into a new version of the ancient aliens story?
All of them. As I said, it's quite easy to visualise why it must be the case.
No, he's not referring to actual astronomical knowledge, he's referring to things like Chichen Itza having 9 steps, therefore the Mayans knew there were 9 planets. Of course, if it had 8 steps, that'd be proof the Mayans knew there were 8 planets, and knew that Pluto wasn't really a planet. If it had 10 steps, it'd be proof the Mayans knew there were 10 bodies in the solar system, 8 real planets + sun & moon. If it had 11 steps, it'd be proof they knew of all 9 planets + sun & moon. etc. Once you decide the aliens imparted this knowledge, it's trivial to come up with coincidences that are reasons these ancient civilisations knew all this stuff. I've met schizophrenics whose delusions were more internally consistent & believable.
Harv
Emperor
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2008
- Messages
- 1,945
I got lost on how to get Earth from a hypothetical orbit at 2.8AU to its present orbit at 1.0AU with only one impact. I was even willing to play along with a cosmic combo shot worthy of the Gods:
Collision 1 knocks Earth at 2.8AU into a transfer orbit taking it to 1.0AU.
Collision 2 knocks Earth into its present orbit at 1.0AU.
We won't discuss the amount of energy transferred in such collisions.
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." Carl Sagan said this in the original Cosmos series, and it was when he was talking about the people who claimed they had seen or been taken aboard UFOs. There wasn't the slightest shred of evidence that these people were telling the truth.
They made an extraordinary claim. They did not back it up with even ordinary evidence, never mind extraordinary.
The following video is an excerpt from Cosmos, episode 12: "Encyclopaedia Galactica":
Link to video.
The number 9 comes up in some Norse myths. Why didn't the Vikings know about Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto?
Exactly. I would appreciate Berzerker answering that question.
