Reggie Miller
Well-Known Member
I'll go along with the 80% wrong. It's quite stupid.
For probably the only time ever, I agree with you.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
I'll go along with the 80% wrong. It's quite stupid.
It mixed too many things together.... yes there are fibonacci like patterns in nature many places
But the sun does not drag the planets in its wake.... a bigger picture is that there are inconsistent spinning of planets in the solar system, some perp some retrograde some early at all...
The solar system shows signs of a good but broken design... gas giants to sweep the solar system of rouge comets... a large non magnetic moon around earth to not interfere with our life helping magnetic field and also to give us tides And contrary to the ideas of the late Carl Sagan, we do not sit in an insignificant place as a pale blue dot no one will ever notice... we sit between two giant arms of the milky way with a clear atmosphere so we can be a planet that views the universe for the glory of God
True, the Sun doesn't drag planets in its wake, but the galaxy you mentioned is rotating like a pinwheel, along with our solar system. That's one motion. The whole rotating galaxy is also moving through space (we're en route to collide with a neighboring galaxy in ~4billion years), that's a second motion.It mixed too many things together.... yes there are fibonacci like patterns in nature many places
But the sun does not drag the planets in its wake.... a bigger picture is that there are inconsistent spinning of planets in the solar system, some perp some retrograde some early at all...
The solar system shows signs of a good but broken design... gas giants to sweep the solar system of rouge comets... a large non magnetic moon around earth to not interfere with our life helping magnetic field and also to give us tides And contrary to the ideas of the late Carl Sagan, we do not sit in an insignificant place as a pale blue dot no one will ever notice... we sit between two giant arms of the milky way with a clear atmosphere so we can be a planet that views the universe for the glory of God
To me its kind of the same. The sun traveling through space and the planets following it.
That's because you apparently do not have sufficient knowledge to hold an informed opinion.
The model is 100 % correct. Our Solar System moves i in this helical pattern around the Milky Way center.Have you ever seen this video (down below)? Some one send me a privet messages and stated that it's about 80% wrong. How much do you think it's wrong from 0 to 100.
It is 100% accurate! The sun moves thru space The Milky Way revolves. They are not claiming that the planets do not revolve around the sun.People who don't even understand basic Newtonian physics, nor what the heliocentric model is, shouldn't be making videos about the interaction of astronomical bodies.
Kilgore, you did not know that Does The Sun Move? - Universe Today ???????It is 100% accurate! The sun moves thru space The Milky Way revolves. They are not claiming that the planets do not revolve around the sun.
It is 100% accurate! The sun moves thru space The Milky Way revolves. They are not claiming that the planets do not revolve around the sun.
Kilgore, you did not know that Does The Sun Move? - Universe Today ???????
Yes - as an approximation of the motion of the planets if we plot them relative to the sun's motion assuming that the sun moves in a straight line (which, of course, it doesn't really, any more than it stands still). However, given, as one or two of us have been trying to get across, motion is all relative, there are potentially an infinite array of models (including the standard sun-centered model which is by far the most useful for most practical human purposes) which are equally "right". We could plot the motion relative to the moon, or one of the other planets, we could plot the motion relative to the center of the galaxy or to one of the sun's neighbouring stars. We would get very different pictures, but equally valid math. Suggesting that one is more "right" than another is like saying that someone 'has blue eyes' is a "more accurate" description than saying 'they have blond hair'. They are just looking at different aspects of planetary motion.It something like this right?
if the axial orientation of the planetary orbits is as such.....the north pole as lead....Have you ever seen this video (down below)? Some one send me a privet messages and stated that it's about 80% wrong. How much do you think it's wrong from 0 to 100.
Yes - so we could - with sufficient mathematical cleverness - plot the planets' motions relative to some (any) arbitrary point in the cluster or supercluster - or even in an exceedingly distant supercluster and the math would still work - but I doubt you'd convince NASA to use that model to calculate payloads and trajectories for a mission to Mars when the standard, and far, far simpler - sun-relative model works equally well. If you want a model that gives the whole "truth" it would have to relate the motion of every body in the entire universe to every other body - and that would simply tell you that the motion of the heavenly bodies is a mathematical mess. Like everything else in reality, it is about as inelegant, improbable and convoluted as it could be and any attempt to pin the "truth" to a simple (simplistic) model is doomed to failure - because reality just isn't simple or elegant or well-designed - it is complex, unrefined and messy - and therein lies its beauty - and it's inherent creativity - as far as I'm concerned.But the Milky Way is also moving through space around the Local Cluster, which is moving around the Local Supercluster...