Privileged Planet

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 :)

231 thoughts on “Privileged Planet

  1. Joe G: No, it doesn’t. Only a moron would say that our solar system existing in this universe is actually just a universe with one star with one planet/ moon system.

    You seem to assume that the rest of the Universe exerts substantial influence on the motion of planets in the solar system. Well, it doesn’t. It is easy to compute how much gravitational a nearby star (say, α Centauri) exerts on the Earth. We will compare it to the pull of another planet, say Pluto.

    The mass of α Centauri is about the same as that of the Sun. It exceeds Pluto’s mass by a factor 108. However, the star is pretty far away from us, 4.4 light years. That’s farther than Pluto by a factor of 104. By Newton’s law of gravity, the gravitational force is proportional to the mass and inversely proportional to the distance squared. So in absolute terms, the gravitational pull of α Centauri is about the same as Pluto’s (a tiny object).

    That, however, is not the full story. In fact, α Centauri’s gravity is even less consequential than Pluto’s! The star is pulling not only on the Earth but als on the Sun and the rest of the solar system. So the entire solar system is nudged, ever so slightly, by α Centauri (or Pluto). That effect does not bother us as it does not affect the relative motion of the Earth and the Sun. The effect on the relative motion is higher order in the distance. One has to see by how much the pull of α Centauri on the Sun is weaker than its pull on the Earth. That gets an extra power of the distance to the star, so the tidal effects (pulling the Earth away from the Sun) decrease as the inverse of the distance to the third power. Accordingly, the influence of α Centauri is 10 thousand times weaker than Pluto’s. It is really minuscule.

    The situation is even worse for stars father away. So we can legitimately neglect their effect on the motion of bodies in the solar system.

  2. You seem to assume that the rest of the Universe exerts substantial influence on the motion of planets in the solar system.

    non-sequitur.

    You seem to assume that our solar system and universe is actually just a universe with one star with one planet/ moon system.

  3. Not only that but you cannot demonstrate that such a simple system would be more condusive to scientific discovery than our current universe is. And THAT is what RichTARD was trying to say.

    Address that or pound sand.

  4. Joe G: You seem to assume that our solar system and universe is actually just a universe with one star with one planet/ moon system.

    I don’t. :) But I am able to demonstrate that the rest of the Universe has no appreciable influence on the affairs inside the solar system containing a single star and a single planet.

  5. olegt: I don’t. But I am able to demonstrate that the rest of the Universe has no appreciable influence on the affairs inside the solar system containing a single star and a single planet.

    Except you cannot do that. You still have no idea that a universe with only one star with one planet/ moon system could exist.

    And more to the point you cannot show that such a universe would be more condusive to scientific discovery than our current universe. That you keep ignoring that part of the debate- the only part that matters- proves that you are dishonest and a jerk.

  6. Not only that but you cannot demonstrate that such a simple system would be more condusive to scientific discovery than our current universe is. And THAT is what RichTARD was trying to say.

    Address that or pound sand.

    Oleg chooses to pound sand- typical…

  7. You seem to assume that our solar system and universe is actually just a universe with one star with one planet/ moon system.

    I don’t.

    Your own words betray you. But that is moot because you won’t even address the issue at hand.

  8. Joe G: Except you cannot do that. You still have no idea that a universe with only one star with one planet/ moon system could exist.

    Of course it could exist. It does not contradict any physical laws. And furthermore, we know quite well that an Earth-sized planet orbiting a Sun-sized star at 1 a.u. is a very stable system.

    Do you have any specific objections to that or are you going to continue copying an pasting your usual drivel?

  9. olegt: Of course it could exist.

    Nice bald assertion.

    It does not contradict any physical laws.

    Good luck providing evidence to support that.

    And furthermore, we know quite well that an Earth-sized planet orbiting a Sun-sized star at 1 a.u. is a very stable system.

    In THIS universe.

    Do you have any specific objections to that or are you going to continue copying an pasting your usual drivel?

    You don’t have any evidence and you are still ignoring the point. But then again ignorance is your strong suit.

  10. Still waiting for an answer:

    Not only that but you cannot demonstrate that such a simple system would be more condusive to scientific discovery than our current universe is. And THAT is what RichTARD was trying to say.

    Address that or pound sand.

  11. Joe G: LoL! We are NOT talking about THIS universe you dishonest puke…

    Are we talking about a fantasy land where all planets spiral toward their suns? :)

  12. olegt: Are we talking about a fantasy land where all planets spiral toward their suns?

    RichTARDs imaginary/ fantasy universe in which there is only one star with one planet/ moon system-

    But thanks for proving that you are nothing buut a coward.

  13. OK so it is settled- RichTARDs universe with only one star and one planet/ moon system would not be a better universe than our current universe for making scientific discoveries.

  14. Joe G:
    dr who

    Look I get it- you don’t have any evidence that nature can produce an insect.

    They’re produced by purely physical processes in large numbers every day.
    Not by nature. Only insects produce insects on this planet.

    But anyway if you ever find some evidence taht nature can produce an insect I will read about it in some peer-reviewed article. Until then you have nothing.

    Define “nature”.

    Are insects a part of “nature”?

    Are humans a part of “nature”?

    Are plants a part of “nature”?

    Are rocks a part of “nature”?

    Is water a part of “nature”?

    Is wind a part of “nature”?

    Is fire a part of “nature”?

    Are planets and stars a part of “nature”?

    Are ticks and watermelons a part of “nature”?

  15. Creodont2: Actually, what’s thoroughly settled is that you have never made a scientific discovery and never will, and that you have no idea what the word “scientific” means.

    Nice projection.

  16. olegt: This is not a different universe. It is a solar system in our universe. Its internal motions are unaffected by the rest of the universe. And this system is stable. According to Newtonian mechanics.

    Again Oleg’s failure to follow along proves that he is a coward.

    Nice job ace.

  17. Joe G:
    Not only that but you cannot demonstrate that such a simple system would be more condusive to scientific discovery than our current universe is. And THAT is what RichTARD was trying to say.

    Address that or pound sand.

    Castles made of sand, slip into the sea, eventually.

  18. Joe G: Not only that but you cannot demonstrate that such a simple system would be more condusive to scientific discovery than our current universe is. And THAT is what RichTARD was trying to say.

    No its not what I was saying, Joe. I’ll wirte a summary at AtBC and link to it. The posts are moving arounf too much here for my liking.

  19. Rich: No its not what I was saying, Joe. I’ll wirte a summary at AtBC and link to it. The posts are moving arounf too much here for my liking.

    Yes Rich, that is what you were trying to say. Nothing you can do to hide from that now. But thanks for the flailing…

  20. All I need is this:

    Rich

    This is true. To extend the idea, we’d only need one star, one planet and one moon via special creation and we could still discover loads. So have you worked out which side of your mouth you’d like to argue for the ‘privileged planet’ from?

    Yet we can discover much, much more in our current universe.

    Nice RichTARD FAIL…

  21. Joe G:
    All I need is this:

    Rich

    Yet we can discover much, much more in our current universe.

    Nice RichTARD FAIL…

    This quote does not suggest a lone star in the universe. It can be simply far away from other stars. Outside of a galaxy. But still in a universe with other stars.

  22. olegt: This quote does not suggest a lone star in the universe.

    Yes it does oleg- lone star with an orbiting planet/ moon system. But thanks for continuing to prove your dishonesty.

  23. Joe G: Yes it does oleg- lone star with an orbiting planet/ moon system. But thanks for continuing to prove your dishonesty.

    No it doesn’t. Your reading comprehension is as bad as your physics.

  24. This is true. To extend the idea, we’d only need one star, one planet and one moon via special creation and we could still discover loads.

    ONE star, not a universe with many stars.

    ONE planet, not a universe with many planets

    ONE moon, not a universe with many moons.

    So either RichTARD has difficulty with English and communication or he is just a dishonest prick.

  25. OMTWO: It’s an inference to best explanation.

    That site says

    So as you presumably were not supporting evolution in the “Creation versus evolution” aspect, you must have been supported the “Creation” version.

    And more evidence for your Creationist (and there is no such thing as a non-theistic creationist) leanings come from your days as “John Paul” where you explicit note that you are actually a creationist.

    More here at TWT’s site.

    http://theidiotsofintelligentdesign.blogspot.co.uk/2012/01/joe-g-muslim-young-earth-creationist.html

    So, Joe, I don’t think god is going to be very happy with you that you denied believing in it to this heathen.

    OM I get it- you are a moron.

    Nothing on the site says I am a christian. Nothing on that site implies I am a christian.

    Nothing on the other site says I am a young earth creationist- and “John Paul” was several people, not just me.

    IOW once again you prove that you are nothing but a dishonest punk troll.

  26. Joe G: Again, YOU were the one who pulled a totally imagined system out of your ass

    It’s not a totally imagined system. As has been patiently explained to you, there’s not much difference between a universe that contains only this solar system and the current universe. So we can use this solar system as a good model for such an idealised system.

    Presumably the reason you don’t know what a “thought experiment” is is that you don’t know what a thought is.

  27. OMTWO: It’s not a totally imagined system.

    Totally imagined.

    As has been patiently explained to you, there’s not much difference between a universe that contains only this solar system and the current universe.

    Moron.

    So we can use this solar system as a good model for such an idealised system.

    This solar system has nothing to do with Richie’s scenario.

  28. Joe G: Nothing on the site says I am a christian. Nothing on that site implies I am a christian.

    Apart from the status that you yourself set that said “Creationist”.

    Joe G: Nothing on the other site says I am a young earth creationist- and “John Paul” was several people, not just me.

    Which were your posts and which were the others? Here is a list of posts, which are yours?

    http://www.evcforum.net/Threads.php?control=tml&mbrid=33

    Joe G: IOW once again you prove that you are nothing but a dishonest punk troll.

    If you are not a creationist or a Christian why are you hanging around on Christian web sites giving them advice or posting on evolution vs creation boards on the side of creationism?

    As that’s exactly what you were doing, as can be seen simply by clicking on that link!

    So you are arguing for creationism without actually being a creationist?

    I note you are very careful to say

    Nothing on the other site says I am a young earth creationist-

    Rather then

    Nothing on the other site says I am a creationist-

    So it seems to me that you *are* a creationist, just not a young earth creationist.

    Is that about right?

  29. Joe G: Totally imagined.

    Yet here we are! Sitting in it! If the solar system was surrounded with dust so that we could not see the universe or even know it existed at all beyond what we could see, what then? We’d not be able to infer (at first) that it existed at all!

  30. Rich: Joe seems desperate not to talk about:1. How old he thinks the universe is2. ““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 yet he accuses others of being cowards. Amazing!

    Bumpety bump!

  31. Joe G: Hi OM-

    Nice try- unfortunately the way to the design inference is THROUGH your position. And that means you had your chance and struck out, badly, many, many times.

    Thanks for finally admitting that the design inference does not stand on it’s own Joe!

  32. Robin: Thanks for finally admitting that the design inference does not stand on it’s own Joe!

    LoL! Robin, the design inference was ALWAYS through materialism. Obviously you do not understand science as Newton’s First Rule mandates what I said.

  33. Joe G: LoL! Robin, the design inference was ALWAYS through materialism. Obviously you do not understand science as Newton’s First Rule mandates what I said.

    ROTFL! Keep trying Joe!

  34. Joe G: OM I get it- you are a moron.

    Nothing on the site says I am a christian. Nothing on that site implies I am a christian.

    Nothing on the other site says I am a young earth creationist- and “John Paul” was several people, not just me.

    IOW once again you prove that you are nothing but a dishonest punk troll.

    In fact, JoeG doesn’t HAVE a coherent position. He is basically opposed to anyone and everyone that isn’t an avowed supporter of ID in one flavour or another
    All he does is to pick things he thinks he can defend, fails more or less spectacularly, but continues to the point of insults, meltdown, and flounce-out.
    Other than that, all he has is a series of slogans and catchphrases. He may be one of those rare people that BELIEVE, but don’t believe IN anything in particular – although perhaps his bedrock belief is that any scientist that he disagrees with is just WRONG.
    But at root, his lack of a coherent worldview is the reason why he can’t answer a straight question concerning it with a straight answer.
    And, of course, he can never, ever, admit to having been wrong, or even honestly mistaken, about anything.

  35. Nothing on the site says I am a christian. Nothing on that site implies I am a christian.

    Apart from the status that you yourself set that said “Creationist”.

    Prove that I set it. Also creationist does not equal christian, so you lose anyway.

    Nothing on the other site says I am a young earth creationist- and “John Paul” was several people, not just me.

    Which were your posts and which were the others?

    Team effort.

    If you are not a creationist or a Christian why are you hanging around on Christian web sites giving them advice or posting on evolution vs creation boards on the side of creationism?

    “The enemy of my enemy is my friend.” Luke is a biologist and I was asking him questions and advising him on how to handle evoTARDs.

    So you are arguing for creationism without actually being a creationist?

    How do you know I was arguing for creationism? Please find the quotes in which I argue for the Bible.

    So it seems to me that you *are* a creationist, just not a young earth creationist.

    Is that about right?

    Not according to the US Supreme Court.

  36. damitall2: In fact, JoeG doesn’t HAVE a coherent position. He is basically opposed to anyone and everyone that isn’t an avowed supporter of ID in one flavour or another
    All he does is to pick things he thinks he can defend, fails more or less spectacularly, but continues to the point of insults, meltdown, and flounce-out.
    Other than that, all he has is a series of slogans and catchphrases. He may be one of those rare people that BELIEVE, but don’t believe IN anything in particular – although perhaps his bedrock belief is that any scientist that he disagrees with is just WRONG.
    But at root, his lack of a coherent worldview is the reason why he can’t answer a straight question concerning it with a straight answer.
    And, of course, he can never, ever, admit to having been wrong, or even honestly mistaken, about anything.

    Nice projection, asshole.

  37. Joe seems desperate not to talk about:

    1. How old he thinks the universe is

    I gave you my answer. Don’t blame because you are too stupid to understand it.

    2. ““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.”

    Again, YOU were the one who pulled a totally imagined system out of your arse

    And yet he accuses others of being cowards.

    The evidence supports my claim.

  38. Joe G: Nothing on the site says I am a christian. Nothing on that site implies I am a christian.

    That’s right. As usual you choose your working carefully.

    Nothing on the site says you are a Christian apart from he fact that you are supporting the site with your time and energy.

    From that I can draw an inference that you are in fact a Christian, otherwise why spend so much time supporting them?

    Joe G: Prove that I set it. Also creationist does not equal christian, so you lose anyway.

    Again, I can’t prove it because you yourself are pretending that it was a group effort. Yet you posted under that tag and did not note to anybody that you were in fact misleading them as you were not a creationist.

    Joe G: How do you know I was arguing for creationism? Please find the quotes in which I argue for the Bible.

    It’s a creationist site about creationism and how Darwin was wrong. What else were you doing there except arguing for creationism

    Joe G: Not according to the US Supreme Court.

    Not sure how that is relevant. Are you or are you not a creationist Joe?

    Note: The cock has already crowed once Joe.

Leave a Reply