Probality of God

[Gwandau]

Gravock,

Everything you have presented on this forum has been theories, and this is perfectly OK as log as you are aware that they are mere theories.
New theories are actually quite interesting, at least when they are backed up with substantial counter arguments that challenges the contemporary ideas.

But claiming a wild theory of yours to be the undisputable truth without the faintest signs of any evidence based arguments only adds to your diminishing reputation here at OU.

What happens is that Mercury has a very rapid axial rotation.  This does not take place on the equatorial plane of the solar system, but at right angles to it.    .....only satellites have this peculiarity.

Do you still claim that? Even if these arguments opposes the irrefutable data aquired by all those well equipped observatories wordwide? This is not an "assumption" as you suggest, it is hard core facts.  The former rotational information was however based upon an assumption due to lack of sufficient technology. Today the technology behind the Mercury observations are highly accurate and no longer an assumption. Still you doubt these simple facts.

Do you understand why your reputation here at OU are getting kind of low?


Gwandau

[gravityblock]

Gravock,

Are you retracting your claim or are you showing us proof? Don't hink you can get away with such a claim without presenting proof. Who do you take us for?

SO DON'T TRY TO SNEAK AWAY LIKE A SNAKE HERE.
GIVES US PROOF OF MERCURY HAVING AN AXIAL ROTATION AT RIGHT ANGLES TO THE EQUATORIAL PLANE OF THE SUN!
SINCE YOU HAVE NOT MADE ONE SINGLE ATTEMPT TO PRESENT PROOF, YOUR WILD ASSUMPTION IS AUTOMATICALLY  DISCARDED BY EVERYONE BUT YOURSELF.

You see, science has it right regarding Mercury. Their observations are no assumptions, they are validated beyond doubt, same level of reliability that tells us the earth is round.
Some areas of astronomical data are irrefutably clear and has been repeatedly validated by independent observations. The documented rotational behaviour of Mercury is such data.

You are embarrasingly wrong this time, and you do not have the grace to admit it, poor guy.

Gwandau

This is what their observations has confirmed so far.  Please note, what they confirm is only based on their observational viewpoint only.  From the view point on earth, Mercury has a 1:1 resonance (confirmed).  From the view point outside of earth, Mercury has a 3:2 resonance (confirmed).  From the view point outside the solar system, Mercury has a rapid axial rotation at right angles to the equatorial plane of the sun (unconfirmed).  So, in reality, what has been observed to date, is only confirmation that things change according to their particular viewing perspective.  TK said it best as found in the quote below:

"Ah, I see. Yes, you've unlocked the secret of the esoteric Grand Year, the complete precessional cycle that defines the Ages of Man on Earth. And you've explained it very well too. Seen from a Being far away and with temporal Vision, the trail of the Earth's orbit around the sun would trace out your helical path (not spiral) as you say and would not actually "close" for the full 27 thousand years, about.  But from an even greater Being's viewpoint even further out.... the Sun itself is moving, bobbing up and down thru the Galactic plane on its orbit around the Galactic center.... it's now halfway through its 19th orbit, passing through the local Arm on its way to one of the interarm Gaps, rushing almost directly away from the star Sirius at over 300 km/sec. From that perspective it will take something like one eighteenth of 4.7 billion "standard" years, or a bit over a quarter of a billion years, for the Even Grandest Year to conclude.  This is all covered in the Vedanta, by the way, as you probably  know."

You think there confirmation is validated beyond a doubt based on what they observe from a very limited viewpoint proves me wrong.  Are you really this narrow minded?  You're the one who is embarrassingly wrong this time and I'm sure you have too much pride to admit it. 

Gravock

[gravityblock]

Gravock,

Everything you have presented on this forum has been theories, and this is perfectly OK as log as you are aware that they are mere theories.
New theories are actually quite interesting, at least when they are backed up with substantial counter arguments that challenges the contemporary ideas.

But claiming a wild theory of yours to be the undisputable truth without the faintest signs of any evidence based arguments only adds to your diminishing reputation here at OU.
Do you still claim that? Even if these arguments opposes the irrefutable data aquired by all those well equipped observatories wordwide? This is not an "assumption" as you suggest, it is hard core facts.  The former rotational information was however based upon an assumption due to lack of sufficient technology. Today the technology behind the Mercury observations are highly accurate and no longer an assumption. Still you doubt these simple facts.

Do you understand why your reputation here at OU are getting kind of low?


Gwandau

Who are you to say what my reputation is?  Do you speak for everyone here?  Do you think for everyone here?  People are narrow minded, and have a tendency not to see what is beyond their own perception.  I on the other hand, am open minded, and try to see what is beyond my own perception.  If this ruins my reputation, then so be it, because I refuse to limit my thinking.  I'm not here to be the most popular or the most liked.  I don't want to be like everyone else, according to how I perceive most to be. If you conceive a limit, then what is beyond that limit.  If everyone agreed with you or with me, wouldn't this make things dull and uninteresting?  Of course it would, yet you condemn me for having ideas which you don't accept.  I have shown how their observations doesn't confirm that I am wrong in regards to Mercury.  If you can't accept this, then I feel bad for you.  You speak bad of my reputation, yet you embrace the reputation of Wilby's.  Really?  Let's get real!  Maybe you should take a better look at your own reputation and the reputation of others which you may embrace, before worrying about mine.

Gravock

[Gwandau]

From the view point outside the solar system? 

Suddenly a clown comes jumping out of the box with the hilarious "From the view point outside the solar system". Give me a brake.

Where did your old reference point go, the one only refering to the equatorial plane? Am I chasing you out of the solar system?

Of course everything depends upon the viewpoint chosen, you may get a million different orbital paths depending on the reference taken by the observer.
Claim any orbital deviation you want, just refer to the point of reference in the celestial neighbourhood needed for that observation.

You sure are a slippery snake, and I am getting bored of this spineless attitude of sneaking away from the subject.
Maybe the other guys will make you self aware, who knows.


I'm leaving this thread for good. Thrash around in this insane playground with your RedNeck Neanderthal buddies as much as you want, I can't stand the reek anymore.


Gwandau

[gravityblock]

From the view point outside the solar system? 

Suddenly a clown comes jumping out of the box with the hilarious "From the view point outside the solar system". Give me a brake.

Where did your old reference point go, the one only refering to the equatorial plane? Am I chasing you out of the solar system?

Of course everything depends upon the viewpoint chosen, you may get a million different orbital paths depending on the reference taken by the observer.
Claim any orbital deviation you want, just refer to the point of reference in the celestial neighbourhood needed for that observation.

You sure are a slippery snake, and I am getting bored of this spineless attitude of sneaking away from the subject.
Maybe the other guys will make you self aware, who knows.


I'm leaving this thread for good. Thrash around in this insane playground with your RedNeck Neanderthal buddies as much as you want, I can't stand the reek anymore.


Gwandau

So, what is it?  Does Mercury have a 1:1, a 3:2, or some other nonzero resonance?  Isn't this part of the relativity theory which you so dearly hold on to?  It can have all kinds of resonances, right, according to your reference frame?  If this is the case, then why did you try to use it against me?  Because in reality, it proves nothing in and of itself (a slippery snake in disguise).  I guess a person can tell themselves anything and make themselves believe it.

Gravock