Toronto posted this comment on another thread:
A privileged planet, ( for observation of the universe ), would be one that could see “most” of the universe, i.e. not part of it.
We would sit on “top” of the universe so we could see more star systems than having to look “through” a mass of stars.
This position would also cut down on the effects of gravitational lensing.
We would also have a unique orbit both within our solar system, and as part of it.
Our solar system’s orbit would take us close to other star systems so we could investigate them without having to build spaceships that take more than a scientist’s lifetime to get anywhere.
Our atmosphere would shield us from almost any deadly radiation but not impede any signal we require for observing the universe.
Sadly , none of these things are true.
In reality, like any other planet, our positions are relatively fixed for much longer than our lifetime and radiation from the stars would kill us if we got close enough to observe them, provided the gravitational forces or asteroid impacts don’t kill us first.
which sparked a lengthy discussion, which at first I moved to Sandbox, but will now move here.
Enjoy 🙂
A precise age may or may not be possible to determine, but an ‘at least’ age is not only possible but well established. How would you fill in the blank in this sentence:
The universe is at least …………. years old.
Hey Joe, do your alien friends also live on privileged planets (or moons)? Can they observe the universe from their planets as well as humans can from this one?
And what about planets (or moons) that may have only ‘simple’ life forms? Are those planets or moons privileged too? Are those ‘simple’ life forms privileged? Can they observe the universe? Did they ‘win’ their existence?
Joe G,
This has me very interested.
If you come up with a value that is no more than 6000 years you are in effect saying that creationism’s guess is more accurate than that of geologists.
Do you believe geology is flawed as you claim evolution is?
For shame, Joe, tempting me with straight lines like that!
LoL! The UPB, using an old universe, gives your position the benefit of the doubt- meaning it is using your position’s parameters.
But anyway your continued false accusations are useless as obvioulsy you cannot make your case and just have your ignorance to go by.
No, I say they use a process similar to or exactly like, the EF. As a matter of fact the EF follows Newton’s rules, parsimony and Occam’s razor.
But then again you don’t know the first thing about scientific investigation.
OK- for a one star with one planet/ moon system to work, empty space will have to some factor larger than the system- ie relativity. Put the Sun in the space of say the orbit of Mars and all of a sudden its mass overwhelms that relatively small area which would cause a “black hole effect”, meaning everything would fall into it.
So yes, if a designer could figure out how much space is needed to support such a simple system, it could be pulled off. But such a system would have much less to scientifically discover-> astronomy and cosmology are basically wiped-out.
But anyway, Rich said something about a designer being able to design this complex universe but not a simple one such as his one-star universe, is absurd.
However Rich would have us believe that mother nature designed something as complex as living organisms but yet cannot design something as simple as Stonehenge.
Derrrrrr…
Nice try, but it won’t work.
Green eggs and ham.
If that’s the case, then why are you pushing ID? Is there some official time limit on that “first shot”? Is science (what you call materialism) required to have all the answers right now? Is tomorrow too late? How about a hundred years from now, or a thousand, or five thousand?
Cramming your designer/creator/god into current or imagined gaps is a very poor argument.
Can your design ‘model’ of how the Earth formed be tested and replicated? Can your design ‘model’ determine how old the Earth is, and is it testable and replicable?
How would you fill in the blanks in these sentences:
The Earth is at least …….. years old.
The universe is at least ……. years old.
Do “we” have to know how the Earth formed to determine whether it is billions of years old versus thousands of years? If so, why exactly?
Joe G,
We are talking about a very, very large difference in the age of the Earth between creationists and geologists.
Do you think geologists are wrong when they say the Earth is almost a million times older than creationists claim?
Sorry Joe. Your changing your tune. You said:
“For ONE, the earth/ moon system would fall into the Sun without any counter-balance- we need that external pull to help keep us in place.
Obviously you don’t have much of a physics background. And obviously all you have are “why” questions that 5 year olds ask. ” and then reaffirmed with “Yup and no one can prove otherwise” on your blog.
You also said:
“What happens when you stretch out a piece of fabric, say a bed sheet, and then put one heavy bowling ball on it and then try to get two much smaller marbles to stay a specified distance- relatively close- away from the bowling bowl?
You need a way to keep the bowling bowl from making too big of a dent, which is difficult to do wrt ONE heavy object. If the fabric is too tight the bowling ball will go all over the place.” and reaffirmed “I stand by that also”
Is this still your view (which is at odds with modern physics)?
http://i612.photobucket.com/albums/tt204/Kattarina98/GallienC.jpg
No. The Sun is too big in size and too light to make a black hole. Its radius (700,000 km) would have to shrink down to 3 km in order for the Sun to become a black hole.
As a result, relativistic effects associate with the Sun’s gravity are tiny. Mercury, the planet orbiting closest to the Sun, follows Newtonian dynamics very closely. Relativistic corrections are tiny. They cause an extra precession of Mercury’s perihelion by 43 seconds of arc per century. This is really, really, really small. Forget about the Sun as a black hole.
I said “black hole effect”- IOW obviously you cannot follow along and again have to make stuff up.
In THIS universe. But I am not talking about THIS universe.
Try again… 😉
Toronto-
The earth could be made up of old materials. Ya see geologists assume the earth formed via cosmic collisions and then the temp exceded some limit.
LoL! I am allowed to “change my tune”- but thanks for proving that you will always be a limp noodle…
But anyway, Rich said something about a designer being able to design this complex universe but not a simple one such as his one-star universe, is absurd.
However Rich would have us believe that mother nature designed something as complex as living organisms but yet cannot design something as simple as Stonehenge.
Derrrrrr…
“LoL! I am allowed to “change my tune”- ”
Yes you are, John Paul, I mean Jim. At least you’ve learned some physics, if not some manners.
Although that black hole thing was jibberish, as Oleg points out.
“And obviously Oleg doesn’t understand what I posted, or worse…”
Given you didn’t understand orbital mechanics two days ago:
“For ONE, the earth/ moon system would fall into the Sun without any counter-balance- we need that external pull to help keep us in place.
Obviously you don’t have much of a physics background. And obviously all you have are “why” questions that 5 year olds ask. ”
and may still not, You might consider a little more humility and self doubt, given that Oleg’s understanding has consistently proven to be masterful, as one would expect from a domain expert. You may command that level of respect in the field of toaster repair, but I find it difficult to believe you moved from failing the basics to mastering the difficult parts of cosmology in such a short time.
LoL! YOU presented a BOGUS scenario, Rich. And neither you nor Oleg knows if such a universe could exist.
IOW Rich, you don’t understand physics and were forced to make something up. Not only that the reason you made it up has been exposed as totally WRONG.
Another Rich FAIL…
But anyway, Rich said something about a designer being able to design this complex universe but not a simple one such as his one-star universe, is absurd.
However Rich would have us believe that mother nature designed something as complex as living organisms but yet cannot design something as simple as Stonehenge.
Derrrrrr…
Joe, what kind of a “black hole effect” are you talking about? In this passage:
To me this sounds like a description of a black hole.
“Everything”, in this scenario, would be the earth and moon. My bad, you caught me.
But if there is no one left to observe the light, does it really matter what happens to it?
“Everything” (the Earth and the Moon) won’t fall into the sun, unless you fine-tune the initial parameters of their orbit so that it is aimed straight into the Sun. There will be no “black hoe effect” to speak of.
The parameters are that space ends at the orbit of Mars, which isn’t enough space to allow for any orbits given the mass of the Sun at the center of it.
Oh, boy. 🙂
Space ends? What exactly does that mean? That’s a pretty radical construction that I haven’t seen in the scientific literature. Is there an edge that you can fall off?
Isn’t enough space for any orbit? That’s patently not true. The Earth’s orbit, for example, is inside the orbit of Mars. So is Venus’s. So clearly there is enough space inside the orbit of Mars to fit in any number of stable orbits.
LoL! Oleg, I get it- you have no idea what I am saying even though I have been very clear. So either you are purposfully obtuse or you just don’t have a clue.
Not only that you cannot demonstrate such a simple universe could exist.
And obviously there isn’t anything in the scientific lit because no one can demonstrate such a simple universe could exist.
Joe G
The parameters are that space ends at the orbit of Mars, which isn’t enough space to allow for any orbits given the mass of the Sun at the center of it.
Somebody forgot to tell the asteroids in the asteroid belt, as well as the outer planets.
LoL! Another evo that cannot follow along- pathetically typical…
Ya see Thortard, in Richie’s scenario, the scenario we are discussing, we have a universe with only one star with one planet/ moon system.
Indeed, Joe, I have no idea what you are saying! 🙂 That is why I asked you to clarify what exactly you meant by the “black hole effect” and what happens at the “end of space.” Would you care to explain?
Furthermore, you are clearly in error when you say there isn’t enough space inside the orbit of Mars for a stable orbit in the gravitational field of the Sun. There are plenty of such orbits. For example, any circular orbit whose radius is less than that of the Mars orbit, will do nicely. Any elliptical orbit with the aphelion inside the Mars orbit is also stable. Just ask Newton. 🙂
Oleg-
Forget it oleg, you are hopeless.
But anyway if you ever get around to finding a universe with one star that has one planet/ moon system, please let me know.