Back to Home

God & Science Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | God and Science | Post

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
I Don't Think So :)

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Mario Dovalina on August 8, 2002 19:43:51 UTC

"A collision like this would result in an elliptical orbit, but Uranus's orbit is quite circular."

This is pretty disingenuous, Sam. First off, planet's orbits don't start off circular, and only become elliptical once they're smashed by something. It's perfectly possible that Uranus started elliptical, and was knocked towards a more symmetrical orbit. Secondly, the magnitude of impact required to significantly change a planet's orbit is much more than that required to significantly change its angle of rotation. Uranus is HUGE.

"2. The moons of Uranus orbit at Uranus's equator, therefore they must have come into orbit after the collision, most likely fragments from the collision (According to evolutionist). But when all the moons and orbiting debris are combined they only make up 0.01% of Uranus's mass. A collision powerful enough to knock Uranus on it's side would have created MUCH more debris than that!"

Uranus is mostly gas. Almost all matter ejected from a collision would be gas. Any fragments "broken off" during the collision would have have to have come from the core, where the gravity is insanely powerful. Many fragments would have been sucked back into the planet. Also, it's perfectly possible that its moons formed from orbiting asteroids, etc.

"Voyager 2, during it's pass of Uranus, recorded that Uranus's magnetic axis was about 60 degrees tilted from it's rotational axis. The reason it unknown."

Ah, the good old argument from ignorance. Please realize that saying "We don't know why thing X happens" or "Theory Y doesn't explain all observations" is far, FAR away from saying "Creationism is correct." There's a lot of stuff we don't know, and saying "God did it" only pushes the problem further back. When a scientist proposes a theory, he is immediately subjected to scrutiny from all sides. But all a creationist has to do to explain Uranus' magnetic axis is say: "God did it." Why did he do it? "Because he wanted to." Why did he want to? "He moves in mysterious ways." Sorry Sam, this is not an argument.

"miranda is a rock with amazing cliffs and valleys. NASA says that it was created like a normal moon, but was blown apart (5 times!) from collisions, then reassembled because of the gravitational force between the pieces. But the gravitational force would probably not be enough to pull this planet togheter once, much less 5 times."

I need more info on this. Size may not matter. Is Miranda much denser than expected?

Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2023 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins