question

[KerrMetric]

I giggled.

I giggle a lot on here.

 

[gluadys]

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that the polar regions would be tropical. I meant that most of the earth, where people live, would have generally warmer and more pleasant weather. I guess I was addressing extremes of weather caused by orbit and angle.

I'm saying that this isn't the original way earth was oriented in its orbit. A powerful force struck the earth, knocking it out of a perfect orbit, and off it's axis, and caused the destruction to earth that is evident in the geologic record, and in siesmic events still happening.

What makes a circular orbit "perfect" and an elliptical orbit less than perfect? What makes a perpendicular axis "perfect" and a tilted axis less than perfect?

What's wrong with having differing climatological zones? What is wrong with having seasons?

Finally, if God could restore life to a ruined world, why coulld he not restore the original "perfect" orbit and axis while he was at it?

 

[KerrMetric]

What makes a circular orbit "perfect" and an elliptical orbit less than perfect? What makes a perpendicular axis "perfect" and a tilted axis less than perfect?

He's channelling Aristotle. This is a very Pythagorean and subsequent Greek schools way of thinking.

Finally, if God could restore life to a ruined world, why coulld he not restore the original "perfect" orbit and axis while he was at it?

Actually God cannot have done this by observation.

 

[gluadys]

He's channelling Aristotle. This is a very Pythagorean and subsequent Greek schools way of thinking.

I know. That the circle was the perfect geometric form was taken for granted for two millennia because of Aristotle's influence. Even Copernicus still took for granted that in a heliocentric system, orbits would be circular.

Similarly gold is the "perfect" mineral (hence the project of alchemy to turn lead into gold) and the rose the "perfect" flower.

But why is a Christian exponent of the gap thesis appealing to quintessential Greek thinking when none of this is scriptural? What is the basis of importing this particular extra-biblical philosophy?

Actually God cannot have done this by observation.

Granted. But that applies to the whole ruin/reconstruction scenario. What I am looking for is some consistency in gap thinking. If so much else was reconstructed, why not the "original" orbit and axis of the earth as well?

Of course, inconsistency, scientific and/or logical is the hallmark of most creationist thinking of whatever school.

 

[KerrMetric]

But why is a Christian exponent of the gap thesis appealing to quintessential Greek thinking when none of this is scriptural? What is the basis of importing this particular extra-biblical philosophy?

Any port in a storm or the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Of course, inconsistency, scientific and/or logical is the hallmark of most creationist thinking of whatever school.

I think it is truly an example of a mutation that did lead to a decrease of information.

 

[gluadys]

I think it is truly an example of a mutation that did lead to a decrease of information.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I'm sorry, but this was the funniest thing I've read in a long time. So the rebellion caused caused F=ma? That's what you're saying. The ellipse of the Earth's orbit is due to how forces work. It has nothing to being "knocked" off course by some mysterious force.

Somewhere Kepler is spinning in his grave (non-circular orbit I presume).

Kepler (I really don't know who this is) didn't created the earth, and he didn't write the bible.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Again, let's start with basic physics. The ellipseness of the Earth's orbit has very little effect on weather seasons. Quick thought example, when it's summer in the Northern hemisphere, what season is it in the Southern? If you guess winter, how is that possible if the Earth is closer to the sun in the summer (as you elluded to)?

Next, in this perfect world, in order for the Earth to have a circular orbit, the two foci that the Earth travels around must be one and the same. Right now, the Sun is one, the other is empty space. Please tell me pre-Fall what the 1 focus was that the Earth travelled around?

This is rapidly falling to dad level theorization.

I know that the orbit has less to do with climate than tilt.

So are you saying that God created the earth is its present orbit and tilt?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

What makes a circular orbit "perfect" and an elliptical orbit less than perfect? What makes a perpendicular axis "perfect" and a tilted axis less than perfect?

What's wrong with having differing climatological zones? What is wrong with having seasons?

Finally, if God could restore life to a ruined world, why coulld he not restore the original "perfect" orbit and axis while he was at it?

He chose not to.

I enjoy the changing season, but don't like the severity of winters. If I could change it I would. (I live in Wisconsin.)

One thing we are asked to do in these forums is to give scriptural evidence when needed. However I assume that everyone here is well read biblically and immediately recounts scriptures that support not only their position but others as well. Am I assuming too much?

You can only tear so many pages out of the bible, and all you'll have left is the cover.

 

[KerrMetric]

So are you saying that God created the earth is its present orbit and tilt?

Actually the orbit and tilt vary over time - actually for the same reason it cannot have ever been perfectly circular.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Actually the orbit and tilt vary over time - actually for the same reason it cannot have ever been perfectly circular.

Orbit isn't too important. Tell me about tilt variance over time. Is it substantial? Does that suggest another imperfection, like a wobble? I'll grant that orbit may not have been perfectly circular, too many pulls on it from many directions. But do you think it was created perfect. And is it as perfect as it can be now?

 

[KerrMetric]

Orbit isn't too important. Tell me about tilt variance over time. Is it substantial? Does that suggest another imperfection, like a wobble? I'll grant that orbit may not have been perfectly circular, too many pulls on it from many directions. But do you think it was created perfect. And is it as perfect as it can be now?

The obliquity varies over about 2.5 degrees over time. The eccentricity also varies over long time scales between 0.002 and 0.06 or so.

No it wasn't created "perfect". It certainly is varying as we speak so it can't be perfect now. The current eccentricity is not at a minimum and the obliquity is neither at a max or min right now.

 

[gluadys]

He chose not to.

Which amounts to saying that there is no understandable reason, or if there is, it is inaccessible to us, so there may as well not be one. As soon as anything is the unexplained choice of a divine being, it is no explanation at all.

One thing we are asked to do in these forums is to give scriptural evidence when needed. However I assume that everyone here is well read biblically and immediately recounts scriptures that support not only their position but others as well. Am I assuming too much?

Well that is what I have asked for and you have not provided. What is the scriptural basis for saying that a circle rather than an ellipse is a perfect orbit or that perpendicularity rather than a 23 degree tilt is a perfect axis. As far as I know, scripture makes no such assertion. So why do you?

You can only tear so many pages out of the bible, and all you'll have left is the cover.

According to scripture, adding to it is just as reprehensible as subtracting from it.

 

[shernren]

That's really cool. Could you explain something to me? I've been searching for this, but haven't been able to find information about it. I know the first focus of a 2 body system is the center of mass of the system. In the case of the Earth and Sun, the Sun pretty much is the center of mass.

What is the physical meaning of the second focus (the empty space)? I know you can calculate it by observing the Earth's position relative to the Sun, but exactly what does it mean physically? Or does it have no meaning, and it just falls out from the math?

As far as I know, KerrMetric is right that there is no physical significance to the second focus. But from what I know, if we start a satellite-planet system with a satellite theoretically possessing a purely tangential velocity (and no forces besides gravity, as an ideal situation), you'd get a perfectly circular orbit. Am I right? From what I know, if you draw a line from the first focus to the second (the "major axis") of the elliptical orbit, the line represents the direction of an initial radial velocity, which "stretches out" the orbit in that direction because the angular velocity is not constant.

Am I right? (In my current syllabus we are only taught the circular - initial radial velocity approximation.)

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that the polar regions would be tropical. I meant that most of the earth, where people live, would have generally warmer and more pleasant weather. I guess I was addressing extremes of weather caused by orbit and angle.

I'm saying that this isn't the original way earth was oriented in its orbit. A powerful force struck the earth, knocking it out of a perfect orbit, and off it's axis, and caused the destruction to earth that is evident in the geologic record, and in siesmic events still happening.

You're not getting any of what I said. Those lousy extremes of weather aren't caused by the ellipticity of the earth's orbit or the tilt of the earth's axis. In fact, they're mitigated to some extent by the tilt. Instead they are caused by two basic facts:

1. The earth is round.
2. The earth spins on its axis.

Here's the logic of how it works. The more polar regions are slanting, therefore the same amount of radiation from the Sun strikes a larger area on the ground. The intensity is lessened, hence the solar heating is lessened. Re-radiation and local greenhouse trapping goes down too. Basically the entire temperature system goes down the farther you go from the equatorial latitudes.

This has NOTHING to do with seasons. If the axis of the planet were perpendicular to its orbital plane, you wouldn't get seasons, it's true. What you'd get is each and every single day in, say, Ontario being consistently colder than each and every single day in Kuala Lumpur Malaysia. The daytime: nighttime would be stuck at 1:1 and so you wouldn't get a single substantially warmer or colder day.

Neither do "destructive weather patterns" have much to do with tilt. Earthquakes and volcanoes have nothing to do with the tilt of the earth, as far as we know. Enhanced global warming and the ozone hole *are* demonstrable examples of how the Fall has damaged our planet's climate, but they have nothing to do with the tilt of the planet either. And cyclonic wind patterns are caused by latitudinal temperature differentials, plus Coriolis motions set up by the rotation of the planet. In fact you wouldn't get a well-defined cyclone season: you'd get cyclones all the time because the temperature differential wouldn't change and you'd always have "optimum" conditions for cyclones.

And I doubt a tropical planet would be "perfect" for, say, Inuits.

Did God specifically tell you that He never intended seasons for the planet Earth? Where in the Holy Book? Did God tell you that a circular orbit is somehow more holy and pleasing than an elliptical orbit? The burden of proof is on you to support this.

 

[random_guy]

I think the bigger problem with a perfectly circular orbit/non-tilting Earth is both positions are unstable positions. From what I've learned in non-linear dynamics and chaos, small perturbations due to uneven distribution of density in the Earth and gravitational effects of the Moon and other planets will cause the Earth's orbit to go to a more stable non-circular orbit and more wobble rotation.

That is, unless God created the Earth to have perfect uniform density as a function of radius, and no other planets/stars/objects with mass existed during the perfectly circular orbit stage.

 

[KerrMetric]

That is, unless God created the Earth to have perfect uniform density as a function of radius, and no other planets/stars/objects with mass existed during the perfectly circular orbit stage.

Ta da. Correct.