(December 1, 2018 at 3:54 pm)Gae Bolga Wrote: Ayup, that settles it, some god drunkenly stumbled into them.

There ya go. Add it to your paper.

Maybe the universe is really a giant pool table, and that's how the "balls are spinning."  Can we add that to the paper too?

I'm pretty sure we can add anything to the paper using the means that produced such a conclusion.

(December 1, 2018 at 4:20 pm)Gae Bolga Wrote: I'm pretty sure we can add anything to the paper using the means that produced such a conclusion.

Good idea.  We can also add a comics section.

I can't believe that billions can actually think that the following scenario is a possibility:

I think I'll create a universe... Right I've done that and I'm quite pleased.
I now need everyone in the world to know that it was me that created it all. But how should I communicate it to them?? Aha I know... I'll send one of my messengers to tell that illiterate paedophile over there.

For tits sake... To the creator of everything. You can design a universe, but you can't think of a better way to communicate a simple message effectively.
A needy God like you should have made absolutely sure that there would be absolutely no doubt about your identity.

This is my argument against the existence of your God (A God that want's to be credited with creation and that gives a shit about being worshipped.) I'm open to the idea of a non shit giving intelligence, but then, why call it God?  

And don't give me that shit about disrespecting Mo either.

(December 1, 2018 at 5:20 pm)IWNKYAAIMI Wrote: I can't believe that billions can actually think that the following scenario is a possibility:

I think I'll create a universe... Right I've done that and I'm quite pleased.
I now need everyone in the world to know that it was me that created it all. But how should I communicate it to them?? Aha I know... I'll send one of my messengers to tell that illiterate paedophile over there.

For tits sake... To the creator of everything. You can design a universe, but you can't think of a better way to communicate a simple message effectively.
A needy God like you should have made absolutely sure that there would be absolutely no doubt about your identity.

This is my argument against the existence of your God (A God that want's to be credited with creation and that gives a shit about being worshipped.) I'm open to the idea of a non shit giving intelligence, but then, why call it God?  

And don't give me that shit about disrespecting Mo either.

Thanks for your opinion.

If you're having trouble with a message, maybe ask someone who knows.  We don't have to know everything, just how to find information when we need it.

(December 1, 2018 at 4:35 pm)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote:

(December 1, 2018 at 4:20 pm)Gae Bolga Wrote: I'm pretty sure we can add anything to the paper using the means that produced such a conclusion.

Good idea.  We can also add a comics section.

Redundant, gods -are- a comics section.

(December 1, 2018 at 5:26 pm)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote: Thanks for your opinion.

No problem.

(December 1, 2018 at 5:32 pm)Gae Bolga Wrote:

(December 1, 2018 at 4:35 pm)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote: Good idea.  We can also add a comics section.

Redundant, gods -are- a comics section.

When people aren't sure about something, some say "it's impossible", some do nothing at all, some make excuses, and others go find out through study and exploration.

Regardless, thanks for sharing your opinion.

(December 1, 2018 at 3:44 pm)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote:

(December 1, 2018 at 3:32 pm)Jehanne Wrote: The scientific term is "randomness".

Randomness? I don't want to seem insulting, but that's funny.

If you have two massive objects and there was a "trajectory" as mentioned in the paper, then how is that their rotation changed?  Or how would it be different?  That involves energy, and in enormous amounts.  "Randomness" isn't a plausible answer.  At least not if we're really wanting to understand the whole story, because they didn't just decide to spin the other way.  Unless you believe they are conscious and could do it on their own without some external form of energy, that would've been, at the very least, released during some natural process.  I'm not saying it's super natural, but it deserves an explanation or we might as well throw that paper in the waste basket.  Plus we need to compensate for two separate events ,or anomalies, that would account for it happening with two planets divided with four other planets in between with opposing behavior.

Your questions will be easily answered by any undergraduate astronomy text, say, 21st Century Astronomy.

(December 1, 2018 at 5:58 pm)Jehanne Wrote:

(December 1, 2018 at 3:44 pm)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote: Randomness? I don't want to seem insulting, but that's funny.

If you have two massive objects and there was a "trajectory" as mentioned in the paper, then how is that their rotation changed?  Or how would it be different?  That involves energy, and in enormous amounts.  "Randomness" isn't a plausible answer.  At least not if we're really wanting to understand the whole story, because they didn't just decide to spin the other way.  Unless you believe they are conscious and could do it on their own without some external form of energy, that would've been, at the very least, released during some natural process.  I'm not saying it's super natural, but it deserves an explanation or we might as well throw that paper in the waste basket.  Plus we need to compensate for two separate events ,or anomalies, that would account for it happening with two planets divided with four other planets in between with opposing behavior.

Your questions will be easily answered by any undergraduate astronomy text, say, 21st Century Astronomy.

Which one?  Title, author(s), page number?

Not saying you're right or wrong, but would like to see what you believe to be the explanation based on the said astronomy text(s) that supposedly exist.