Mass of the solar system

[Stripe]

A couple of astronomers are excited because they think there might be a ninth planet in the solar system:

Scientists Find Hints Of A Giant, Hidden Planet In Our Solar System The astronomer whose work helped kick Pluto out of the pantheon of planets says he has good reason to believe there's an undiscovered planet bigger than Earth lurking in the distant reaches of our solar system. The astronomer whose work helped kick Pluto out of the pantheon of planets says he has good reason to believe there's an undiscovered planet bigger than Earth lurking in the distant reaches of our solar system. That's quite a claim, because Mike Brown of Caltech is no stranger to this part of our cosmic neighborhood. After all, he discovered Eris, an icy world more massive than Pluto that proved our old friend wasn't special enough to be considered a full-fledged planet. He also introduced the world to Sedna, a first-of-its-kind dwarf planet that's so far out there, its region of space was long thought to be an empty no man's land. Now Brown has teamed up with Caltech colleague Konstantin Batygin to do a new analysis of oddities in the orbits of small, icy bodies out beyond Neptune. In their report published Wednesday in The Astronomical Journal, the researchers say it looks like the orbits are all being affected by the presence of an unseen planet that's about 10 times more massive than Earth — the size astronomers refer to as a super-Earth.

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-...f-a-hidden-distant-planet-in-our-solar-system



But of course, the creationists are way ahead of them:

Detecting the Hidden Mass That Comets Feel In the last 920 years, almost 1,000 different comets have been observed accurately enough to calculate these five numbers. Surprisingly, pairs of comets have very similar sets of numbers. Could some “strange pairs” really be the same comet on two successive orbits? The estimated orbital period, the time to complete one orbit, for each member of the “strange pair” is so extremely long that they should not be the same comet. However, if the comets were all different, the chance of any two randomly selected comets having such similar orbits is about one out of 100,000. The chance of getting at least 13 “strange pairs” from the vast number of possible pairings is about one out of 7,000. If the solar system’s mass has been slightly underestimated, orbital periods are much shorter, and some “strange pairs” are almost certainly the same comet. Other reasons are given in this chapter for believing that a slight amount of extra mass exists in the solar system.

https://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/Comets10.html


​

 

[Jose Fly]

It's always amusing to see how creationists operate. Here, we see Stripe describe a process where creationists say something ("more mass in the solar system"); scientists go out, collect data, analyze it, and draw conclusions from it ("there might be another big planet out there"); and creationists declare "See? We were right! Science proves it!"

Yet if we apply that exact same process to the larger claims of young-earth creationism we must also conclude that science has shown pretty much the entire construct of YEC to be wrong....the earth isn't less than 10,000 years old, the universe isn't less than 10,000 years old, there wasn't a global flood, etc.

But somehow the creationists only seem to cite science as proving or disproving things when it agrees with them. When it disagrees with them, apparently that can just be waved away! Funny how that works.

 

[Stripe]

Here, we see Stripe describe a process where creationists say something ("more mass in the solar system"); scientists go out, collect data, analyze it, and draw conclusions from it ("there might be another big planet out there"); and creationists declare "See? We were right! Science proves it!"

Nope. The data were crunched years ago by our side.

You should try reading up on the issue instead of emoting. :up:

 

[Jose Fly]

Nope. The data were crunched years ago by our side.

You're not making sense. In the OP you cite NPR who cites regular, mainstream scientists who collected data, analyzed it, and tentatively speculated that there might be another planet in our solar system. You use the outcome of that process to claim that it validates something creationists said previously.

So let's apply that same process to YEC's main claims.

Regular, mainstream scientists have collected data, analyzed it, and firmly concluded that the universe is much, much older than 10,000 years; the earth is much, much older than 10,000 years; there was no global flood; species are the result of billions of years of evolutionary common descent; and humans share a common ancestry with other primates.

Why are you so quick to cite and embrace the work of regular, mainstream scientists when their speculations agree with you, but not when their firm conclusions disagree with you?

Are you familiar with the concept of confirmation bias? :think:

 

[George Affleck]

Are you familiar with the concept of confirmation bias? :think:

Are you familiar with apples vs. oranges?

 

[Traditio]

there wasn't a global flood, etc.

How would you go about proving that?

 

[User Name]

How would you go about proving that?

Stratigraphy, fossil layers, etc.

 

[Traditio]

Stratigraphy, fossil layers, etc.

Ok. Offer me a proof that the global flood did not occur, of the following form:

1. If a global flood occurred, then x must be the case.
2. X is not the case.
3. Therefore, etc.

1. If the global flood occurred, then x must not be the case.
2. X is the case.
3. Therefore, etc.

 

[Stripe]

Yeah, dude. This thread was about something.

 

[rexlunae]

So, Stripe, what you're saying is that creationists predicted the existence of a planet with an orbital period longer than the age of the entire creationist Cosmos? That seems...strange to say the least.

 

[Stripe]

So, Stripe, what you're saying is that creationists predicted the existence of a planet with an orbital period longer than the age of the entire creationist Cosmos? That seems...strange to say the least.

Evolutionists love making things up.

The claim has been made by Professor Mike Brown — and repeated in thousands of newspapers around the world — that a ninth planet has been discovered far beyond the orbits of Neptune and Pluto. No, a planet has not been discovered; a large planet has been imagined and placed in a position that might explain a few mysterious details of the approximately 70,000 orbiting bodies (typically 30-1500 miles in diameter) called trans-Neptunian objects that began to be seen in 1990 orbiting the sun far beyond what we used to consider our solar system. Explanations of the details of this issue, and much more, are far better explained at http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/Asteroids4.html.

 

[rexlunae]

Evolutionists love making things up.

The claim has been made by Professor Mike Brown — and repeated in thousands of newspapers around the world — that a ninth planet has been discovered far beyond the orbits of Neptune and Pluto. No, a planet has not been discovered; a large planet has been imagined and placed in a position that might explain a few mysterious details of the approximately 70,000 orbiting bodies (typically 30-1500 miles in diameter) called trans-Neptunian objects that began to be seen in 1990 orbiting the sun far beyond what we used to consider our solar system. Explanations of the details of this issue, and much more, are far better explained at http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/Asteroids4.html.

I'd think you would be happy. Scientists have made a prediction from theory. If they're fundamentally wrong, it should give you a chance to attack them for it. So what's your prediction? Will they, or won't they find this planet?

 

[Jose Fly]

How would you go about proving that?

Go study some geology and you'll understand why the Biblical flood was rejected over 200 years ago (by European Christian geologists no less).

 

[Jose Fly]

Yeah, dude. This thread was about something.

Oh, it's about something all right. It's about you getting all excited "Look, look! Scientists just might agree with me!" Then when I point out "Yeah, but scientists disagree with you on much bigger things", and you respond "Well, that doesn't count because.........reasons". :chuckle:

 

[patrick jane]

So, Stripe, what you're saying is that creationists predicted the existence of a planet with an orbital period longer than the age of the entire creationist Cosmos? That seems...strange to say the least.

Just because it's estimated to orbit once every 20,000 years doesn't mean it has orbited once yet. Maybe in 10,000 years it will complete it's first orbit ?

 

[Stripe]

I'd think you would be happy. Scientists have made a prediction from theory. If they're fundamentally wrong, it should give you a chance to attack them for it. So what's your prediction? Will they, or won't they find this planet?

Hard of reading, aren't you? :chuckle:

The planet is not needed to explain the orbital characteristics of TNOs that have confused astronomers.

 

[6days]

Oh, it's about something all right. It's about you getting all excited "Look, look! Scientists just might agree with me!"

No... It about stellar evolutionists who might reluctlantly be agreeing with another Biblical creationist prediction.

 

[Jose Fly]

No... It about stellar evolutionists who might reluctlantly be agreeing with another Biblical creationist prediction.

So let's assume that's true for a second. By the same methodology you're trumpeting here, science has proven young-earth creationism wrong.

Unless of course you operate according to AiG's philosophy of "If it agrees with my theology, it's right. If it doesn't, it is wrong by definition". Is that your framework as well?

 

[User Name]

The planet is not needed to explain the orbital characteristics of TNOs that have confused astronomers.

What is the cause of the orbital characteristics of TNOs that have confused astronomers if it isn't this proposed planet?

 

[Stripe]

What is the cause of the orbital characteristics of TNOs that have confused astronomers if it isn't this proposed planet?

They all came from the same place a short enough time ago so that the characteristics have not diverged much.