2 edits
Originally posted by chaney3I apologize, it is 3.8 cm per year: And measured several different ways that agree with each other: about 1.5 inches per year.
You seem to like your 1cm per year theory.
Yet, eclipses still happen. Now, past and future.
Maybe the sun is shifting 1cm per year as well?
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/about-us/37-our-solar-system/the-moon/the-moon-and-the-earth/111-is-the-moon-moving-away-from-the-earth-when-was-this-discovered-intermediate
The moon and sun exerts tidal forces on Earth but the Earth also exerts tidal forces on the moon which tends to stretch out the part of the moon facing Earth and minumizing it at 90 degrees away and since that is a roving moving tidal wave, taking about 14 days to go round the moon,(half the moons orbit) it converts orbital momentum into friction heating the interior and slowing it down a bit each year and measured several ways including the retro reflector left on the moon by the NASA astronauts.
Originally posted by chaney3So the arrangement of stars in the sky, like the big dipper is that way to remind people to use dippers when drinking water, right? A designer did that on purpose to make people think about dippers and water, right?
Why did you choose to ignore the fact that the sun is much larger than the moon, yet it is precisely far away enough to cause the perfection of an eclipse. These odds are no coincidence or accident.
And your cm per year for billions of years explanation is questionable.
Originally posted by sonhouseLol lol.
So the arrangement of stars in the sky, like the big dipper is that way to remind people to use dippers when drinking water, right? A designer did that on purpose to make people think about dippers and water, right?
I had not thought about that.
Time to begin research. 🙂
1 edit
Originally posted by chaney3But you claim that the distance is exactly right. Is it, or isn't it?
Hey....the 1cm shift thing belongs to sonhouse, not me!
A reminder that you claim in your OP:
The moon is not only the perfect size, but the perfect distance from the sun, to produce a perfect eclipse.
Exactly how perfect? What percentage change would result in a less than perfect eclipse?
Originally posted by twhiteheadOf course the distances and sizes are perfect, along with orbit, because an eclipse is the result.
But you claim that the distance is exactly right. Is it, or isn't it?
A reminder that you claim in your OP:The moon is not only the perfect size, but the perfect distance from the sun, to produce a perfect eclipse.
Exactly how perfect? What percentage change would result in a less than perfect eclipse?
Why does it seem you are asking me these things as if you are refuting the eclipse as never happening?
I will say again, read sonhouse's posts regarding shifts of the moon. I made no such claim.
Originally posted by chaney3Not true. We would still see total eclipses if the moon were much closer to the earth.
Of course the distances and sizes are perfect, along with orbit, because an eclipse is the result.
Why does it seem you are asking me these things as if you are refuting the eclipse as never happening?
I will say again, read sonhouse's posts regarding shifts of the moon. I made no such claim.
Also (astronomers did the calculation, not me) if the earth-moon distance increases by 4.6 percent (17,000 kilometers), we would still see total eclipses.
Originally posted by wildgrassI'm not sure why you and others keep throwing the 'ifs' in here. If the sun....if the moon....if the orbit....if the distance, etc.
Not true. We would still see total eclipses if the moon were much closer to the earth.
Also (astronomers did the calculation, not me) if the earth-moon distance increases by 4.6 percent (17,000 kilometers), we would still see total eclipses.
At present, each has already been placed perfectly by design. Size, distance and orbit are each as exactly designed.
Originally posted by chaney3Exactly. We all know the moon is not made of blue cheese. But what if the moon were made of barbecue spare ribs? Would you eat it?
I'm not sure why you and others keep throwing the 'ifs' in here. If the sun....if the moon....if the orbit....if the distance, etc.
At present, each has already been placed perfectly by design. Size, distance and orbit are each as exactly designed.
Originally posted by chaney3...What is the goal of this cosmic designer, I ask since you see it so clearly. And, what designed your cosmic designer?
At present, each has already been placed perfectly by design. Size, distance and orbit are each as exactly designed.
Your approach does not address the fundamental questions. You are kindergarten level.
Originally posted by apathistYes, I clearly see design.
What is the goal of this cosmic designer, I ask since you see it so clearly. And, what designed your cosmic designer?
Your approach does not address the fundamental questions. You are kindergarten level.
However, I would not say that I have a clue about understanding the Designer.
Fair enough?
1 edit
Originally posted by chaney3Answer the question. What percentage change would be required for there not to be an eclipse?
Of course the distances and sizes are perfect, along with orbit, because an eclipse is the result.
Why does it seem you are asking me these things ....
Because I want you to try thinking for yourself instead of believing the nonsense you see on creationist websites, hook, line and sinker.
...as if you are refuting the eclipse as never happening?
I do not dispute that eclipses happen. I dispute that there is a 'perfect' distance that is required for an eclipse to happen.
I will say again, read sonhouse's posts regarding shifts of the moon. I made no such claim.
An I made no claim that you made such a claim. Stop trying to dodge the question.
Originally posted by chaney3We are throwing in 'ifs' because your OP suggests that 'if' the moon were a different distance or size then eclipses would not occur. That is simply not true. Your OP is wrong.
I'm not sure why you and others keep throwing the 'ifs' in here. If the sun....if the moon....if the orbit....if the distance, etc.
You therefore cannot deduce design from it. You may believe it was designed if you want, but you cannot claim you believe that because of the actual distance. You believed it first then you wanted to use the distance to convince others to believe as you do. Your mistake was to not stop and think first.