Arguments against existence of God.

[T0 Th3 M4X]

Pluto is not a planet due to deep core drilling for plutonium. Just ask Scroopy Noopers.

Pluto is a good dog and deserves to be a planet, so we're grandfathering him.  That thug Scroopy Noopers go can fetch a stick if he doesn't like it.

On a serious note, people cry about the dumbest things.  On Space.com, they have to say "8 (or 9) planets" to be PC.

[Peebothuhlu]

At work.

Pretty sure people change the designations of things quite often.

[Jehanne]

As promised (from 21st Century Astronomy, pgs. 181-182):

First, I kindly thank you for taking the time to post this, and I pretty much agree with everything in it. Actually I think it's mostly things put in high school science texts as well.  At least from when I was in school.

The problem still exists though of clockwise rotations vs those that are counter-clockwise. Rotation directly affects energy displacement.  Just like if you turn on a fan, the direction the blade turns is going to directly determine where the energy transfers to. This also makes a fan super efficient, because you can use it to add or remove heat energy, giving it to the ability to raise or lower temperatures.  It becomes a bit more complicated with planets because there is also supposed to have been an expanse, previously to or during the initial rotational sequence.  Even a pointed object is going to have rotation, but more so a sphere, due to the same amount of mass having greater surface area in that form vs something else.  Then there is the issue of where the energy came from, and what events caused this, but since we have a gap with 4 planets in between those two planets, I think it's safe to say that there had to be at least two anomalies to explain this, or at least understand the time frame in which both of those planets had their orbit established and how it happened (maybe it had something to do with their alignment when the anamoly took place in contrast to the other planets).

This information is beyond high school; at most there a student will get this information in passing.

And, so....do you have a single scientific citation to support your claims, concerns, etc?  In other words, of the 2K+ astronomers in the United States and the thousands more across the World, is there anyone at all whom you can point to who agrees with you??

[The Valkyrie]

Pandas!

Checkmate, theists!

[T0 Th3 M4X]

First, I kindly thank you for taking the time to post this, and I pretty much agree with everything in it. Actually I think it's mostly things put in high school science texts as well.  At least from when I was in school.

The problem still exists though of clockwise rotations vs those that are counter-clockwise. Rotation directly affects energy displacement.  Just like if you turn on a fan, the direction the blade turns is going to directly determine where the energy transfers to. This also makes a fan super efficient, because you can use it to add or remove heat energy, giving it to the ability to raise or lower temperatures.  It becomes a bit more complicated with planets because there is also supposed to have been an expanse, previously to or during the initial rotational sequence.  Even a pointed object is going to have rotation, but more so a sphere, due to the same amount of mass having greater surface area in that form vs something else.  Then there is the issue of where the energy came from, and what events caused this, but since we have a gap with 4 planets in between those two planets, I think it's safe to say that there had to be at least two anomalies to explain this, or at least understand the time frame in which both of those planets had their orbit established and how it happened (maybe it had something to do with their alignment when the anamoly took place in contrast to the other planets).

This information is beyond high school; at most there a student will get this information in passing.

And, so....do you have a single scientific citation to support your claims, concerns, etc?  In other words, of the 2K+ astronomers in the United States and the thousands more across the World, is there anyone at all whom you can point to who agrees with you??

Most of that I learned in high school.  Not all though.

As far as citations and who agrees with me, well I dunno.  I didn't ask them.  But I doubt that any of them, unless one is a whack job, will disagree on my statements on planetary rotation.  It's conclusive that two rotate in the opposite direction as the others.  So now we need to explain why their behavior is such and how it got that way.  Your answer so far has "randomness." If you would like, you can pick an astronomer of your choice, and I'll contact them to see if they'll do a written statement on it and if they agree that is was randomness or if it should be assumed that another explanation is necessary and/or probable.  Deal?  If so, let me know which astronomer I should contact. I also won't mention names or ideology of either of us when I ask them.  That way they can answer without bias or prejudice.

[Angrboda]

This information is beyond high school; at most there a student will get this information in passing.

And, so....do you have a single scientific citation to support your claims, concerns, etc?  In other words, of the 2K+ astronomers in the United States and the thousands more across the World, is there anyone at all whom you can point to who agrees with you??

Most of that I learned in high school.  Not all though.

As far as citations and who agrees with me, well I dunno.  I didn't ask them.  But I doubt that any of them, unless one is a whack job, will disagree on my statements on planetary rotation.  It's conclusive that two rotate in the opposite direction as the others.  So now we need to explain why their behavior is such and how it got that way.  Your answer so far has "randomness." If you would like, you can pick an astronomer of your choice, and I'll contact them to see if they'll do a written statement on it and if they agree that is was randomness or if it should be assumed that another explanation is necessary and/or probable.  Deal?  If so, let me know which astronomer I should contact. I also won't mention names or ideology of either of us when I ask them.  That way they can answer without bias or prejudice.

[Peebothuhlu]

At work.

Hello T0 th3 M4X.

Pretty sure Venus' rotational quirk wasn't known till radar equipped probes got into an orbit and started mapping said planet's surface roughly in the middle of last century.

As for a hypothetical cause? A more catastrophic, early accretion phase impact than the similar event that formed Earth's Moon in our planets distant paet/formative phase?

Now Neptune? I vaguely remember reading about the possibility of the larger planets 'Migrating' as they finished forming and stabilized their orbits. The finer details elude me at present and under current circumstances.

Also... I would say your bullet spin analogy is some what poor and that ice skaters... (Or perhaps roller skaters on a giant rubber surface ?) would be better?

Cheers!

[T0 Th3 M4X]

At work.

Hello T0 th3 M4X.

Pretty sure Venus' rotational quirk wasn't known till radar equipped probes got into an orbit and started mapping said planet's surface.

As for a hypothetical cause? A more catastrophic, early accretion phase impact than the similar event that formed Earth's Moon in our planets distant paet/formative phase?

Now Neptune? I vaguely remember reading about the possibility of the larger planets 'Migrating' as they finished forming and stabilized their orbits. The finer details elude me at present and under current circumstances.

Also... I would say your bullet spin analogy is some what poor and that ice skaters... (Or perhaps roller skaters on a giant rubber surface ?) would be better?

Cheers!

Thank you. I'm pretty much in agreement with what you said. And not to nitpick, but the other planet is Uranus (just to clarify).

No issues on your statements on their potential migration. This was along the lines of what I was looking for from someone rather than just saying "randomness."

The bullet analogy may not be perfect, but I dunno about roller skaters on a giant rubber surface.  There's probably a good analogy somewhere in between, but for the sake of the argument, I think your idea is "fair."  When I said "bullets", I'm thinking about the kinetic energy that would've had to have been exerted to get that planet in its current orbit regardless of rotation, but I'll admit that the behavior that follows would probably be closer to a bad day at the roller rink.

Anyway, thanks for your thoughts.  Much appreciated.

[The Grand Nudger]

You get similar rotation on a round because of the rifling pattern in the barrel..this only applies to rifled barrels.  In the absence of the rifling..or with a different charge in the round, or with even the slightest deformation between two otherwise identical rounds...you don't get similar rotation. Last I checked, planet sized rifled barrels with standard charges and standard sized and shaped planet projectiles are rare out there in space.

[Peebothuhlu]

At work.

Hello T0 th3 M4X.

Pretty sure Venus' rotational quirk wasn't known till radar equipped probes got into an orbit and started mapping said planet's surface.

As for a hypothetical cause? A more catastrophic, early accretion phase impact than the similar event that formed Earth's Moon in our planets distant paet/formative phase?

Now Neptune? I vaguely remember reading about the possibility of the larger planets 'Migrating' as they finished forming and stabilized their orbits. The finer details elude me at present and under current circumstances.

Also... I would say your bullet spin analogy is some what poor and that ice skaters... (Or perhaps roller skaters on a giant rubber surface ?) would be better?

Cheers!

Thank you. I'm pretty much in agreement with what you said. And not to nitpick, but the other planet is Uranus (just to clarify).

No issues on your statements on their potential migration. This was along the lines of what I was looking for from someone rather than just saying "randomness."

The bullet analogy may not be perfect, but I dunno about roller skaters on a giant rubber surface.  There's probably a good analogy somewhere in between, but for the sake of the argument, I think your idea is "fair."  When I said "bullets", I'm thinking about the kinetic energy that would've had to have been exerted to get that planet in its current orbit regardless of rotation, but I'll admit that the behavior that follows would probably be closer to a bad day at the roller rink.

Anyway, thanks for your thoughts.  Much appreciated.

You're welcome.

I think the bullet analogy is poor because the physics involved is/are completely diffetent.

A bullet's spin is an artefact of the shape of the barrel ( Look up 'Whitworths precision rifle) while planetary (As well as pretty much all stellar phenomenon..... do-do dee do, do) is the artefact of centripetal forces inherited from even before their accretion.