Do our planets have a function in relation to each other?

[Iamme]

If not...this alone is a good argument that either God did not make them, or anything for that matter, because they have no purpose...or God is like us in the sense he TOO had to do some experimenting until he got things right (with Earth)...or...

...God DOES exist and God DID get things right, because the solar system is some fine-tuned machine that we (most of us?) don't realize, and that the only reason Earth works is by having the other planets in the Sun's orbit as well?

[HappyCat]

What does it mean for planets to have a function in relation to each other? I think regardless of your answer, this is not a good argument for the existance of god. Humanity would not have been able to evolve in a place that was not suited for it. To say, though, "Gee, look how well we fit into our environment. It is all so perfectly designed!" would be to ignore the idea that perhaps we suited ourselves to fit our environment, not that the environment was suited to fit us.

[fribble]

If not...this alone is a good argument that either God did not make them, or anything for that matter, because they have no purpose...or God is like us in the sense he TOO had to do some experimenting until he got things right (with Earth)...or...

...God DOES exist and God DID get things right, because the solar system is some fine-tuned machine that we (most of us?) don't realize, and that the only reason Earth works is by having the other planets in the Sun's orbit as well?

Er, what?

You could have just said "Anthropomorphic principle" and that would have been much clearer.

[Grimoire]

Er, what?

You could have just said "Anthropomorphic principle" and that would have been much clearer.

Read some of his other posts. You will find that clarity is not one of his strongest attributes.

[Loss Leader]

...God DOES exist and God DID get things right, because the solar system is some fine-tuned machine that we (most of us?) don't realize, and that the only reason Earth works is by having the other planets in the Sun's orbit as well?

The solar system is a fine-tuned machine? The last time I looked, the solar system was filled with an astonishing amount of junk in all sorts of eccentric orbits which constantly smash into each other. The moon was created when a Mars-sized protoplanet smashed into a still-young earth.

For that matter, at least once that we know of, a huge asteroid smashed into the earth and obliterated almost all life on the planet. And it is possible that an asteroid hit caused the earth to freeze solid (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowball_earth), arresting the development of life for hundreds of millions of years.

And, while the gravitational pulls of the planets do have some small effect on each other, even the syzygy of most of the planets back in 1982 had next to no effect on the orbits of the others.

So, mostly, your question is nonsense.

[blutoski]

What does it mean for planets to have a function in relation to each other?

As in: when they have relationships!

You know: Earth is from Mars, Jupiter is from Venus.

Which is troubling, because Mars is a Virgo, and Venus is a Saggitarius, and they rarely get along.

[fuelair]

And uarehe is from Uranus - or his own. Not sure on the astronomical implications of all that (especially now that Pluto is out of the picture) but I know I don't want it in my House!!

[Soapy Sam]

Well, Jupiter probably sweeps up a lot of junk that otherwise might make the inner system. I suppose some folk would see that as significant- Jove providing a shield to protect his people and all that. Not that Jove was exactly known for protecting people. More your thunderbolt sort of god, really.

The old belief in celestial harmonic motion and "music of the spheres" was a classic wooview of the universe which we don't hear much about these latter (ie post Copernican) days, but there are echoes in some belief systems.

It's probably hard for us today to appreciate what a paradigm shift was required for people to reject the Ptolemaic universe and accept a non Terracentric view. It took high intelligence and clear vision to accept the implications of the data- Galileo did what Einstein did 300 years later- listened to what the universe was telling him, junked his preconceived notions and accepted that reality was not what we had believed.

The fact so many people still fall for astrology suggests 300 years is not long enough. And serious scientists who can spout pure drivel and call it a "Hard Anthropic Principle" suggest the problem is not limited to the uninformed.

[Cuddles]

Well, Jupiter probably sweeps up a lot of junk that otherwise might make the inner system. I suppose some folk would see that as significant- Jove providing a shield to protect his people and all that. Not that Jove was exactly known for protecting people. More your thunderbolt sort of god, really.

Presumably he needed to sweep up the junk so people would know when it was him smiting them. Otherwise they might just think it was random chance.

[geoman]

And, while the gravitational pulls of the planets do have some small effect on each other, even the syzygy of most of the planets back in 1982 had next to no effect on the orbits of the others.


LL, this is patently not true. I distinctly remember a Macgyver film where the opposite was prooooved.


So, mostly, your question is nonsense.

You might be closer to the truth here though. Weak anthropic principle anyone?

[Loss Leader]

LL, this is patently not true. I distinctly remember a Macgyver film where the opposite was prooooved.

I completely and utterly defer to General O'Neill or, as you call him, "MacGyver". I withdraw my statements and apologize most sincerely.

[KingMerv00]

Iamme, what if Earth is here to ensure Phobos doesn't get by an asteroid in the year 2427? What makes you think that Earth is the center of it all?

[jmercer]

If not...this alone is a good argument that either God did not make them, or anything for that matter, because they have no purpose...or God is like us in the sense he TOO had to do some experimenting until he got things right (with Earth)...or...

...God DOES exist and God DID get things right, because the solar system is some fine-tuned machine that we (most of us?) don't realize, and that the only reason Earth works is by having the other planets in the Sun's orbit as well?

No.

[geoman]

I completely and utterly defer to General O'Neill or, as you call him, "MacGyver". I withdraw my statements and apologize most sincerely.

Bah. Can your "General O'Neill", as you call him, solve any problem with a bit of chewing gum, half a biro and a rusty nail? I think not. Macgyver rules supreme!

P.S. I think the film was "MacGyver: Lost Treasure of Atlantis". What an awful pile of [rule8] it was.

[Dave1001]

What does it mean for planets to have a function in relation to each other? I think regardless of your answer, this is not a good argument for the existance of god. Humanity would not have been able to evolve in a place that was not suited for it. To say, though, "Gee, look how well we fit into our environment. It is all so perfectly designed!" would be to ignore the idea that perhaps we suited ourselves to fit our environment, not that the environment was suited to fit us.

Good point. I never understood the argument "what are the odds that the universe seems so well suited for life. change a few basic laws a little one way or another an life never could have sprung up". That's ridiculous in my opinion. Of course, if the universe wasn't suited for life, we wouldn't be here asking that question. But yet apparently this question has troubled physicists and caused them to come up with theories that explain it, such as that black holes create universes, and ours just happens to be one with the internal laws that allow the emergence of life.

I don't get the need to "explain" what could be a random outcome that universe is conducive to our emergence as life forms.

[geoman]

Oi! Back to work!

[Loss Leader]

Bah. Can your "General O'Neill", as you call him, solve any problem with a bit of chewing gum, half a biro and a rusty nail? I think not. Macgyver rules supreme!

General O'Neill is so great at problem-solving that he barely even has to show up at all anymore. He just sends others out to go fix things for him while collecting fat royalty checks because SG1 plays in heavy syndication and MacGyver doesn't.

[Iamme]

Er, what?

You could have just said "Anthropomorphic principle" and that would have been much clearer.

Not to ME...because I don't know what that means. :)

[Iamme]

The solar system is a fine-tuned machine? The last time I looked, the solar system was filled with an astonishing amount of junk in all sorts of eccentric orbits which constantly smash into each other. The moon was created when a Mars-sized protoplanet smashed into a still-young earth.

For that matter, at least once that we know of, a huge asteroid smashed into the earth and obliterated almost all life on the planet. And it is possible that an asteroid hit caused the earth to freeze solid (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowball_earth), arresting the development of life for hundreds of millions of years.

And, while the gravitational pulls of the planets do have some small effect on each other, even the syzygy of most of the planets back in 1982 had next to no effect on the orbits of the others.

So, mostly, your question is nonsense.


How long has it been since the last planet, that revolves around the sun, got sucked into the sun? It is THIS point alone that I base my statement on. We have a 'watch', basically, that has been ticking for billions of years. And this watch is quite complicated when you look at all the parts in motion and what each one has and/or does. My post queries over the 'does' aspect. I am wondering if there is a 'does', that perhaps we just haven't really concentrated on trying to figure out.

In Ecclesiates there is this Bible verse that says something to the fact that for everything under the sun, there is a purpose... a song made popular by the group The Byrds, in the 60's.

Oh...regarding you saying most of my post is non-sense? Perhaps you were born as a piece of nonsense, you twit!

[Loss Leader]

How long has it been since the last planet, that revolves around the sun, got sucked into the sun? It is THIS point alone that I base my statement on. We have a 'watch', basically, that has been ticking for billions of years. And this watch is quite complicated when you look at all the parts in motion and what each one has and/or does. My post queries over the 'does' aspect. I am wondering if there is a 'does', that perhaps we just haven't really concentrated on trying to figure out.

The solar system is not a finely-tuned watch. If you look at the planets in their orbits, you might think you see stability. However, this ignores a huge amount of the mass of the solar system. In reality, it is a fairly chaotic place over the short term. Over the long-term, it is a phenominally chaotic place.

The solar system doesn't "do" anything. It just is. From the point of view of your short life span in one of the more sturdy places in the solar system, you think you see order or purpose. However, you are experiencing the bias of your perspective.

I really don't understand what's so difficult about this.

[toddjh]

The most significant instance that leaps to mind of one celestial body having a "function" in relation to another, in human terms, is the earth-moon system.

If it weren't for the moon's stabilizing effect, gravitational interactions with other planets would lead to the earth's axial tilt shifting wildly on a timescale of thousands of years, causing rapid (geologically speaking) and extreme climate change at all latitudes. While it's conceivable that life could still exist under those conditions, it would be very bad for creatures like us.

Other posters are right, though -- there's no need to invoke deities to explain this kind of "fine-tuning." It's just the weak anthropic principle at work. We should hardly be surprised to look around us and discover that we live in an environment which is capable of supporting us.

[Cuddles]

How long has it been since the last planet, that revolves around the sun, got sucked into the sun? It is THIS point alone that I base my statement on. We have a 'watch', basically, that has been ticking for billions of years. And this watch is quite complicated when you look at all the parts in motion and what each one has and/or does. My post queries over the 'does' aspect. I am wondering if there is a 'does', that perhaps we just haven't really concentrated on trying to figure out.

Why does everything need a meaning? The universe just is, it doesn't need a reason. There is no meaning of life, it just happens, and you should enjoy it while you can.

Things go round the Sun because that's how gravity works. There is no reason for them to crash into the Sun, so they don't. There is nothing really complicated in the Solar system, just a bunch of rocks going in circles. It may look more complex if you try to view the whole thing, but each part is extremely simple, and largely independant from the rest. Yes, there are tidal forces that, over great lengths of time, can cause orbits to follow similar paths or orbit in resonance with one another, but there is nothing that could suddenly destroy the whole thing.

What you should be asking is not "What is it that makes it all work?", but "What is there that could make it all stop working?". The answer to the second question is "Nothing", which makes the first completely meaningless.

In Ecclesiates there is this Bible verse that says something to the fact that for everything under the sun, there is a purpose... a song made popular by the group The Byrds, in the 60's.

The Byrds sang it so it must be true?

[trvlr2]

How long has it been since the last planet, that revolves around the sun, got sucked into the sun? It is THIS point alone that I base my statement on. We have a 'watch', basically, that has been ticking for billions of years. And this watch is quite complicated when you look at all the parts in motion and what each one has and/or does. My post queries over the 'does' aspect. I am wondering if there is a 'does', that perhaps we just haven't really concentrated on trying to figure out.

In Ecclesiates there is this Bible verse that says something to the fact that for everything under the sun, there is a purpose... a song made popular by the group The Byrds, in the 60's.

Oh...regarding you saying most of my post is non-sense? Perhaps you were born as a piece of nonsense, you twit!



And you sprang, full blown, instead of going through the piece-of-nonsense phase?:jaw-dropp

[Roboramma]

For that matter, at least once that we know of, a huge asteroid smashed into the earth and obliterated almost all life on the planet. And it is possible that an asteroid hit caused the earth to freeze solid (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowball_earth), arresting the development of life for hundreds of millions of years.

Both of which were very important parts of the plan. After all, if they hadn't happened, Sacculina carcini would never have evolved. And, as everyone knows, it is Sacculina that our solar system was designed to produce.

[Iamme]

I don't get the need to "explain" what could be a random outcome that universe is conducive to our emergence as life forms.

What you say could indeed be the case. And that is why man just wants to know; which *IS* it anyway?: Random chance that happened no matter HOW great the odds were?...or if there was indeed some sort of engineeer behind the whole thing?

I recently received the latest Jehovah's Witness booklet that asks if there really is a creator. They stated that the odds of a single cell occuring is 1:9,000,000,000,000. That is just ONE of our cells!

According to you, great odds mean nothing because if it didn't happen, it wouldn't be here. Fair enough. And you may be right. But you might NOT be either.

*I* base my thinking more on facts that can't really explain how one thing on Earth seemed to know something else on earth exists. Like...why do plain old seeds work...yet, we have other organic matter that encases the seeds in very delicious edible 'flesh'. Why? It's as if the fruit knew there was something out there that would be eating it. If not...why the flesh..if flesh is not NEEDED for other organic things.

Then there is the other issue where our life is not just that of survival, unlike that of an oyster locked onto some oyster bed for life, stuck there with no eyes, ears, hands or feet, and can't make gourmet meals in the kitchen with it's girlfriend or bring out the chanpagne, nor cry or laugh at movies or comediens, nor take trips around the world, or eat cotton candy at the fair, or go to rock concerts, or go to the orthodontists to get braces to straighten crooked teeth, or make and fly on jets, go to the Moon, parachute, scuba dive...I could fill up pages...PAGES... with such stuff that have nothing to do with surviving and seem to point that SOMEthing out there (or within us) wanted us to enjoy this (possible) Creator's handiwork.

[Iamme]

There is nothing really complicated in the Solar system, just a bunch of rocks going in circles. It may look more complex if you try to view the whole thing, but each part is extremely simple, and largely independant from the rest.

And there really is nothing complicated about a snowflake or crystal either. But they just so happen to be perfectly shaped and if we comparably found a cut diamond outside or a doiley...we wouldn't even think twice as to how they seem out of place...that 'something' had to have made these. Yet, we don't say the same for crystals, or the doiley-like snowflake.

[Zombified]

And there really is nothing complicated about a snowflake or crystal either. But they just so happen to be perfectly shaped and if we comparably found a cut diamond outside or a doiley...we wouldn't even think twice as to how they seem out of place...that 'something' had to have made these. Yet, we don't say the same for crystals, or the doiley-like snowflake.
There's quite a bit of research into how crystals form which informs our understanding of both diamonds and snowflakes. We know that cut diamonds are not naturally occurring shapes and we understand how and why jewel-cutters create those shapes, so if we find something like that we have a pretty good idea of how it came to be. Attributing an artifact to intelligent intervention is like a murder mystery: you have to explain motive, means, and opportunity.

With the solar system, our understanding of its formation is less direct, but we do have some fairly good models of how it came to be, and now that we can begin to detect and observe planets (at least the large ones) around other stars, we can refine them even more. We got ourselves a few surprises, for example, we didn't think gas giants close to stars would be as common as they appear to be, but that's what makes it fun...

[fuelair]

Not to ME...because I don't know what that means. :)
It's true!:rolleyes:

[Grimoire]

And there really is nothing complicated about a snowflake or crystal either. But they just so happen to be perfectly shaped and if we comparably found a cut diamond outside or a doiley...we wouldn't even think twice as to how they seem out of place...that 'something' had to have made these. Yet, we don't say the same for crystals, or the doiley-like snowflake.

Translation: I don't understand, therefore god did it. It doesn't matter if there is someone out there that does understand it. If I am incapable of understanding it, no one is, therefore god did it.

[Bruce]

Q: Do our planets have a function in relation to each other?

A: Yes. They all orbit the same star.

f(sun) = a(Mercury) + b(Venus) + c(Earth) +.....

[Mashuna]

Then there is the other issue where our life is not just that of survival, unlike that of an oyster locked onto some oyster bed for life, stuck there with no eyes, ears, hands or feet, and can't make gourmet meals in the kitchen with it's girlfriend or bring out the chanpagne.

That's not true - I've seen oysters at a gourmet meal, with champagne too. I don't know if they were enjoying it, but they were certainly participating.:D

[Loss Leader]

That's not true - I've seen oysters at a gourmet meal, with champagne too. I don't know if they were enjoying it, but they were certainly participating.:D


I recently read the book The Big Oyster by Mark Kurlansky in which he reveals the fairly disturbing fact that - even cut open, separated from their shells with butter or cocktail sauce poured on them - raw oysters are eaten alive.

Yeesh!