God's rule about solar systems.

Lazarus Long said:

God has deemed only one planet per solar system can contain life and our examination of our solar system supports this rule.
We have found other solar systems in the universe but it would seem from our discoveries that it's likely that only one planet in those solar systems is capable of life as we know it.
What do you think?

Click to expand...

It could happen if it's the right mix of ingredients but certainly well beyond our galaxy. Given the presence of the Bible God was & is.

Lazarus Long said:

God has deemed only one planet per solar system can contain life and our examination of our solar system supports this rule.
We have found other solar systems in the universe but it would seem from our discoveries that it's likely that only one planet in those solar systems is capable of life as we know it.
What do you think?

Click to expand...

I think this point was proven wrong several years ago. It's like posting about how Al Gore won the presidency.

TRAPPIST-1 - Wikipedia

3 planets in the habitable bit.

Sorn said:

Why would their orbits be unstable?

Click to expand...

For one thing our orbit around the Sun is elliptical. The result of that is that our rotation around the Sun is faster when we are closer to it than when we are far away from it. Our "twin" would have the same behavior. That means that the planet closer to the Sun would be advanced in its orbit during perihelion and lagging in its orbit when it was at aphelion. The result is that we would be able to see that other hypothetical planet at that time. At least from space it could be done where blocking out the effect of the Sun is relatively minor.

Lazarus Long said:

one planet in those solar systems is capable of life as we know it.

Click to expand...

Speedwell said:

The other problem is "life as we know it." All we know about life so far is what happens on this planet, but that may not be the whole story.

Click to expand...

Yeah, C.S. Lewis gave a good story about this in his The Space Trilogy - Wikipedia books.

I kind of believe that we humans were actually created to populate the entire universe--even by making the planets habitable, though we have experienced a setback. In the grand scheme of things, the whole war in heaven and on earth will just be a little blip before we leave this seed bed and spawn throughout eternity.

Subduction Zone said:

For one thing our orbit around the Sun is elliptical. The result of that is that our rotation around the Sun is faster when we are closer to it than when we are far away from it. Our "twin" would have the same behavior. That means that the planet closer to the Sun would be advanced in its orbit during perihelion and lagging in its orbit when it was at aphelion. The result is that we would be able to see that other hypothetical planet at that time. At least from space it could be done where blocking out the effect of the Sun is relatively minor.

Click to expand...

Ok, its not against the laws of physics to see another planet on the same orbit as yours.
Still doesn't explain what prevents such a thing occurring.
Also, the orbits may be more circular in some cases (in other solar systems) so they may never see each other directly.

Sorn said:

Ok, its not against the laws of physics to see another planet on the same orbit as yours.
Still doesn't explain what prevents such a thing occurring.
Also, the orbits may be more circular in some cases (in other solar systems) so they may never see each other directly.

Click to expand...

To repeat, the question is not whether two planets can occupy the same orbit, but whether they can remain in that condition indefinitely (where indefinitely is, in your words, long enough for life to develop).

I've done my head in reading a selection of papers on the orbital stability of planets. The maths in them is way above my pay grade. (light years, not AU above) I cannot find anything that states simply and clearly in a manner likely to convince you that the probability of the required stability is so close to zero as to be practically impossible. I've approached the reading of these on the basis that they would confirm your view. That hasn't worked out. They all appear to support my contention that planetary orbits - of all kinds - are unstable because of complex interactions and resonances arising from their gravitational attraction.

I'll keep looking.

Edit: in the meantime this paper is interesting, Pakter & Levin Stability and self-organization of planetary systems 2018

Abstract:
We show that stability of planetary systems is intimately connected with their internal order. An arbitrary initial distribution of planets is susceptible to catastrophic events in which planets either collide or are ejected from the planetary system. These instabilities are a fundamental consequence of chaotic dynamics and of Arnold diffusion characteristic of many body gravitational interactions. To ensure stability over astronomical time scale of a realistic planetary system – in which planets have masses comparable to those of planets in the solar system – the motion must be quasi-periodic. A dynamical mechanism is proposed which naturally evolves a planetary system to a quasi-periodic state from an arbitrary initial condition. A planetary self-organization predicted by the theory is similar to the one found in our solar system.

Sorn said:

Why would their orbits be unstable?

Click to expand...

The mathematics is too complex for me to understand or explain, but all my books on celestial mechanics agree that the straight-line solutions for the three-body problem are unstable, whereas the equilateral-triangle solutions are stable.

Sorn said:

Ok, its not against the laws of physics to see another planet on the same orbit as yours.
Still doesn't explain what prevents such a thing occurring.
Also, the orbits may be more circular in some cases (in other solar systems) so they may never see each other directly.

Click to expand...

It is not "against the laws of physics" but it would still be unstable. It would not stay in that orbit for an extended period of time. I am not an astrophysicist but it would probably be only a matter of years before even the limited separation I talked about would begin to break down.

Sorn said:

The crucifixion of Jesus was no picnic for him, the Gospels make that abundantly clear. Its one of the worst ways to die. He won't be doing it again, ever. He won't be dying again, period.

Click to expand...

Again, how have you determined that? You are just saying "it's hard" and then making an assertion.

Belk said:

Again, how have you determined that? You are just saying "it's hard" and then making an assertion.

Click to expand...

There is no evidence, none whatsoever, that Jesus will or would die again and I'm not going to entertain a position that has no biblical basis at all.
On the contrary the bible emphasizes he died just once.
See
Hebrews 7:27
Hebrews 9:27-28
Romans 6:10
1 Peter 3:18

Sorn said:

There is no evidence, none whatsoever, that Jesus will or would die again and I'm not going to entertain a position that has no biblical basis at all.
On the contrary the bible emphasizes he died just once.
See
Hebrews 7:27
Hebrews 9:27-28
Romans 6:10
1 Peter 3:18

Click to expand...

There is also no evidence that he would not die again. That he died once is not in question.

Belk said:

There is also no evidence that he would not die again. That he died once is not in question.

Click to expand...

OTOH, if you assume that anything not mentioned in the bible is impossible...

FrumiousBandersnatch said:

OTOH, if you assume that anything not mentioned in the bible is impossible...

Click to expand...

Right? Computers? Fake!

Lazarus Long said:

God has deemed only one planet per solar system can contain life and our examination of our solar system supports this rule.
We have found other solar systems in the universe but it would seem from our discoveries that it's likely that only one planet in those solar systems is capable of life as we know it.
What do you think?

Click to expand...

The solar system has multiple places with potential life, not sure what your talking about.

Bacteria on mars under the soil could still live.
Europa has liquid water that could support life.
Titan or one of the moons with liquid methane is missing some chemicals that should be there, which could be either life, or some novel chemical reaction that we don't know about.
Plus weird potential life that could live on the gas giants some how.

We can barly tell that other solar systems have planets let alone life at this point, it's way too early to be deciding anything.

HARK! said:

But He answered and said to them, “I tell you that if these should keep silent, the stones would immediately cry out.”

Click to expand...

The stones on this planet can only "cry out" about life on this planet. We would need to do some serious exploration of other planets to be able to "hear" their stones.

Subduction Zone said:

The stones on this planet can only "cry out" about life on this planet. We would need to do some serious exploration of other planets to be able to "hear" their stones.

Click to expand...

I think he may have been implying (not that i agree with him) that there may be stone aliens out there, ie stone based life. Or would that be stoned aliens?

Someone is certainly stoned here and it ain't me!

HARK! said:

Creation cries out. The stars in the sky are a testament of creation.

Click to expand...

Nope, that is misinterpretation and worse yet an unjustified assumption on your part. "I don't know" is never a good excuse to insert a god.