Precision in Nature: Evidence of God or Accidents?

I suppose it is true that I am the only one of the two of us who agrees with me. I'll also state that I don't find it particularly difficult to admit error.I am going to make a request that may be out of the ordinary for a forum in which I am suppose to supply my own arguments. But I understand that you will not trust me despite the fact that I am far more knowledgable on this subject than you.Please perform a google search using 'Why do planets orbit the sun'. When I tried the search myself, I turned up plenty of correct answers. I'll provide you with a link to one of them, but I encourage you to find an answer on your own. Please ignore any hits you get that point to your own, er answers.The most simple answers I found were these: But please feel free to report on what you find.

Or to put it in simpler terms, the centripetal force created by the circular orbit must equal the force of gravity that is acting in the opposite direction. Gravity increases with the mass of the star, and decreases with distance.Just think of how your hot wheel cars are able to go around the loop and stay stuck to the track.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

Did you also read further done on the same web page the explanation of why Pluto is not called a planet anymore? What did you make of that?

quote:

---

ALTER2EGO:
As you can see, NASA, the last source I quoted, used the expression "just like other planets" when describing Pluto. That can only mean one thing: Pluto is indeed a planet.

​

NO NUKES:
Did you also read further done on the same web page the explanation of why Pluto is not called a planet anymore? What did you make of that?

---

ALTER2EGO -to- NO NUKES:
Yes, I read all that. And as I previously stated, a "dwarf planet" is still by definition a planet. In 1930, Pluto was accepted as a planet. Then in 2006, the International Astronomical Union decided that a new system of classification was needed to describe what is to be referred to as "planet.' In other words, it's nothing but a game of semantics--which I will not play.Overview | Planets — NASA Solar System Exploration

quote:

---

NO NUKES:
Since you have your finger directly on the issue, I'll make another attempt to explain. I will quote here only the two sentences that you are misinterpreting. My own emphasis added.

quote:

---

Massive planets have stronger gravity than low-mass planets so a satellite orbiting a massive planet is accelerated by a greater amount than one going around a lesser mass planet at the same distance. To balance the stronger inward gravitational pull of the massive planet, the satellite must move faster in its orbit than if it was orbiting a lesser mass planet

---

The two quoted sentences explicitly say that a more massive planet causes a satellite orbiting the more massive planet to go faster than the satellite would go if were orbiting a smaller planet. Note that no mention is made of the mass of the satellite. That's because the mass of the satellite, as long as it is small compared to the planet, is irrelevant.

---

ALTER2EGO -to- NO NUKES:
Notice the portion within the above quotation that I bolded in light green. The source also says that the satellite "must move faster in its orbit," indicating that the satellite's own gravitational forces are a contributing factor and that the more massive planet is not the only reason why the smaller planet speeds up. That's the point I've been making. To hear you tell it, the more massive planet is the only deciding factor in all this interplay of planet movements.If anything, the examination of planets and their reaction to each other's field of gravity proves the point of this thread: that there is precision in the natural world and that precision cannot result by accidental means.

No, it isn't. A dwarf planet is a dwarf planet. A planet is a planet. They are two different things.Even worse, your definition of planet is simply something that orbits the sun which would make all of the comets and asteroids planets as well, so we actually have millions of planets in the solar system according to your redefinition of planet.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

When the difference in mass is very large the satellite has very little effect. If the satellite is large then the larger mass will noticebly wobble because both bodies are orbitting around their shared barycenter. A see-saw is a good analogy. Edited by Taq, : No reason given.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

That is not what it indicates. Stop making stuff up. Either read your own sources until you understand them or read post #22 until you understand that.

Well, let me provide a third vote. You are talking ridiculous nonsense about a subject which you have obviously never even tried to understand.

Now you are just making things up. The satellite must move faster. Yes the source does say that.On the other hand, "the sources own gravitational forces are a contributing factor" is something you made up out of whole cloth. It is not part of the source and it is not implied by the source. What the source DOES say is that the mass of the body that the satellite orbits does matter. It is completely silent about any other effect.Let me provide an example of the behavior I'm describing. Imagine a space ship orbiting the earth and performing a docking operation with the International Space Station. Despite the fact that the space ship is only a fraction of the size of the space station, all that is necessary for the space ship to match the orbit of the space station is for the space ship to match the velocity and position of the space station. Once that is done the space ship and the space station will stay in matching orbits.Were your proposal to be correct, it would be impossible for two objects having different masses to match orbits even around the same massive body. Yet we both know that this 'impossible' task is routinely done.

Is this Alter2Ego's first universe?

What you are calling semantics is what astronomers would call using correct scientific terminology. If you simply refuse to use that terminology, then that does indeed end part of the discussion.The problem for you is that you there is no reasonable definition of planet that results in a count of nine for the solar system and you have stated that there are nine planets. Using your definition, how do you classify Ceres, Pluto, Haumea, Makemake, and Eris. Eris is larger than Pluto and has a moon to boot.

Of course it is. He very well could be trolling, but if he's having trouble understanding English then that would also make sense.But obviously, what he says his quotes are saying is not what they are actually saying... so something's wrong.Meh, maybe he's young.

It could be that Alter2Ego sees what he/she expects to see.

quote:

---

NO NUKES:
You don't trust anyone here, so if there is any person offline you can trust, who knows even a little about astronomy, I suggest that you ask them about your statement above. But you are beyond my help. I'll take whatever suspension this comment has earned, but you are an absolute buffoon.

---

Hmm.... That has a familiar ring. It rhymes with sore loser. You know, buffoon and lose. I hear stuff like that wherever I debate people who can't accept defeat gracefully.