Re: Evolution and Observation Gap


topmind wrote:
By the way, why is Pluto's orbit so lopsided?

Why do you think Pluto has an "orbit"? We haven't observed a complete
orbit; therefore its "orbit" is pure conjecture. What makes you claim
its orbit is "lopsided"? Not descending into conjecture, are you?

In any case, it's not lopsided, it's eccentric. For someone who seeks
to redefine science, you don't seem to know much of it.

The answer -- to why it's eccentric -- is "because it's a KBO, and most
KBOs' orbits are eccentric, because there was nothing to constrain
their orbits to circles, and smaller bodies are more perturbable than
larger bodies." In the same way, asteroid orbits are mostly quite
eccentric, many of them moreso than Pluto.

The three smallest planets have the three largest eccentricities;
Pluto's eccentricity (.25) is not much greater than Mercury's (.21),
which is only a little more than twice Mars' (.09). Smaller bodies
have less momentum, and over large spans of time events are more likely
to perturb them than larger bodies.

We haven't observed any gravitational effects from any nearby
'Nemesis', which we'd see as (at least) infinitesimal movements of the
outer planets (and which would have screwed up things like Voyager II's
trajectory among the four gas giants).

In about six years Neptune will complete its first orbit since its
discovery. Yet in the year of its discovery -- even before its visual
identification -- its orbit had been plotted, and 165 years later it
will have completed *exactly that orbit*.

Sounds like they knew the fact of its orbital path before it had
actually been observed doing it. Now how do you suppose they could do
that? Conjecture? Somehow, when scientists "conjecture", it seems to
match up very well with later observation. Now why do you suppose that
is?

Anyway, it's all moot. I've observed evolution. Macroevolution, I mean.
That and abiogenesis. I was there, four and a half billion years ago,
when the Earth was formed.

You think I wasn't? OK, don't just conjecture I wasn't. Prove it.
Since you weren't there, you can't. Therefore, by your argument, you
have no *reason* to reject what I say; it's all a matter of faith.

(For you, that is. I know it happened, because I was there.)

eyelessgame

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Evolution and Observation Gap
    ... Why do you think Pluto has an "orbit"? ... therefore its "orbit" is pure conjecture. ... and smaller bodies are more perturbable than ... The three smallest planets have the three largest eccentricities; ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Strategy for revolutionizing math and physics
    ... The orbit of Mercury is observed to be 87.969 days. ... far from the sun where the pointwise probability of existence ... mathematics, but conjecture. ... It is conjecture with respect to mathematics. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Tag-team orbits and tidal locking
    ... > two really big moons in a tag-team orbit... ... apply to the co-orbital moons already known, ... they have synchronous rotations (I assume ... bodies are at the "mean distance". ...
    (rec.arts.sf.science)
  • Re: OT? Why Doesnt the Moon Fall Down?
    ... How far away is the moon supposed ... There are five Lagrange points, or special-case solutions to the three-body ... one of the three bodies must be _much_ smaller ... and must be in orbit around that larger one. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: OT? Why Doesnt the Moon Fall Down?
    ... How far away is the moon supposed ... There are five Lagrange points, or special-case solutions to the three-body ... one of the three bodies must be _much_ smaller ... and must be in orbit around that larger one. ...
    (talk.origins)