Probality of God

[scratchrobot]

I have some questions maybe someone here can give me an answer?

God created this universe just for us humans?
Humans have souls, how about other species on this planet?
Does an aborted child have a soul and does it go to heaven or?
..........
......
..

[hoptoad]

Yes, and all of the bodies in the solar system share the same orbital/revolution resonance except for one, which makes it different than the others.  Categorize Mercury as a satellite as it is, then all of the planets in the solar system will share at least one common property so they may be referred to by the same name, such as planets.

Gravock

Tell those who write the textbooks, you're the only who seems to have a naming convention problem. I'm happy to accept that mercury is both a planet and a satellite according to current scientific nomenclature,

I feel you have more of a need to be seen to be right, than to be happy, so you immerse yourself in definitive semantics.

[gravityblock]

Tell those who write the textbooks, you're the only who seems to have a naming convention problem. I'm happy to accept that mercury is both a planet and a satellite according to current scientific nomenclature,

I feel you have more of a need to be seen to be right, than to be happy, so you immerse yourself in definitive semantics.

No, I am not the only one who has a naming convention problem.  And no, I'm not the one twisting everything around and putting a spin on things to appear to make myself look right.  There are 19 moons in the Solar System that have achieved hydrostatic equilibrium and would be considered planets if only the physical parameters are considered. Both Jupiter's moon Ganymede and Saturn's moon Titan are larger than Mercury, and Titan even has a substantial atmosphere, thicker than the Earth's. Moons such as Io and Triton demonstrate obvious and ongoing geological activity, and Ganymede has a magnetic field. Just as stars in orbit around other stars are still referred to as stars, so some astronomers argue that objects in orbit around planets that share all their characteristics could also be called planets. Indeed Mike Brown makes just such a claim in his dissection of the issue, saying:

    "It is hard to make a consistent argument that a 400 km iceball should count as a planet because it might have interesting geology, while a 5000 km satellite with a massive atmosphere, methane lakes, and dramatic storms [Titan] shouldn't be put into the same category, whatever you call it."  However, he goes on to say that, "For most people, considering round satellites (including our Moon) "planets" violates the idea of what a planet is."

In other words, let's be inconsistent according to our preconceived ideas of what something should be.

Gravock

[hoptoad]

snip...

There are 19 moons in the Solar System that have achieved hydrostatic equilibrium and would be considered planets if only the physical parameters are considered. Both Jupiter's moon Ganymede and Saturn's moon Titan are larger than Mercury, and Titan even has a substantial atmosphere, thicker than the Earth's. Moons such as Io and Triton demonstrate obvious and ongoing geological activity, and Ganymede has a magnetic field. Just as stars in orbit around other stars are still referred to as stars, so some astronomers argue that objects in orbit around planets that share all their characteristics could also be called planets. Indeed Mike Brown makes just such a claim in his dissection of the issue, saying:

    "It is hard to make a consistent argument that a 400 km iceball should count as a planet because it might have interesting geology, while a 5000 km satellite with a massive atmosphere, methane lakes, and dramatic storms [Titan] shouldn't be put into the same category, whatever you call it."  However, he goes on to say that, "For most people, considering round satellites (including our Moon) "planets" violates the idea of what a planet is."

In other words, let's be inconsistent according to our preconceived ideas of what something should be.

Gravock

I agree with almost everything you just said, but I don't write the textbooks, and frankly I don't care. A rose by any other name smells just as sweet. While you're hung up on naming conventions,  astronomers have been busily processing the data sent from mercury by their explorer spacecraft Messenger.

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/messenger/main/index.html

Since Nasa's influence is just a wee bit greater than mine, I suggest you could start lobbying for more consistency with and perhaps through them.

[gravityblock]

I agree with almost everything you just said, but I don't write the textbooks, and frankly I don't care. A rose by any other name smells just as sweet. While you're hung up on naming conventions,  astronomers have been busily processing the data sent from mercury by their explorer spacecraft Messenger.

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/messenger/main/index.html

Since Nasa's influence is just a wee bit greater than mine, I suggest you could start lobbying for more consistency with and perhaps through them.

I am fully aware of messenger.  This doesn't mean much to me, because NASA is a cover up for the real space program.  I'll give you an example.  A group of astronomers have reported the discovery of a new planet possibly inhabitable close to the solar system (40 light years). A group of astronomers can make this discovery with small telescopes at 40 light years away, but NASA can't confirm a massive body on the edge of our solar system which is 4 times the size of Jupiter? LOL.  NASA's WISE could confirm Tyche, but then they conveniently claim they had to shut down WISE.  How can it be a hypothetical when they know it's 4 times the size of Jupiter and is made of hydrogen and helium along with where it's located? This doesn't sound hypothetical to me. Besides, NASA has known about Tyche since 1983 and it was on major US news then, but in 1984 NASA tried to cover it up.  Here's a video explaining our Binary Solar System.  Everybody knows they airbrush stuff out of photos.  They're only going to tell you what they want you to know, regardless if it's true or not.  Then, the general public believes their B.S.!  Of course, this is how they continue to receive funding for the real space program.

Gravock