A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Others » Misc
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Solar System Assembly Line



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old June 11th 21, 03:08 PM posted to alt.astronomy
John Bode
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1
Default Solar System Assembly Line

Trimmed the "comp.*" newgroups as this is not topical to any of them.

On 6/2/21 11:07 AM, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
Greetings all,

I have devoted much time to this theory, and it holds up in every
regard. I have discussed it with people, shown my videos to others,
devout Christians, scientists, and nobody can debunk it with anything
that's not related to some other theory which contradicts it.


That's how the process works, Rick. If you're going to propose an
explanation for why the solar system looks the way it does today,
that explanation has to do three things:

- Incorporate current observations;

- Explain current observations in a way that's better than
existing theories;

- Predict new observations that can be tested somehow;

What evidence did you have *for* your conveyor system? What
observations of the outer planets suggested to you that they are
building new Earths inside of them? What arrangement of planets
and asteroids suggested to you that Earth-sized bodies have moved
orbits over time?

What primary materials did you study to reach this conclusion? I mean
the boring "this is what we measured" kind of stuff, like

Seiff et al. (1996) "Structure of the Atmosphere of Jupiter:
Galileo Probe Measurements", Science, Vol. 272, Issue 5263,
pp. 844-845

Jacobsen et al. (2009) "Cassini Langmuir probe measurements in
the inner magnetosphere of Saturn", Planetary and Space Science,
Vol. 57, Issue 1, pp 48-52

That's just two random papers grabbed off of Google Scholar, but
that's the kind of stuff I'm talking about - observations,
measurements, data. That's the kind of stuff you need to base
your theory on.

Why did your theory better explain the arrangement and composition of
objects in the solar system than any existing theory? Again, what
observations can you point to that suggested your theory works better?

I announce today that I am rejecting this theory for one reason: The
theory states that a Savior is given to each cycle of Earth, and that
the people who lived during that 7,000 year cycle would be saved by
that Savior and not the one all-time Savior that the Bible teaches
exists. It is enough to discount the entire theory.

I believe in Jesus Christ.

I believe He is man's only and all-time Savior and what is happening to
us on this Earth in this existence is unique and special in His
universe.

I reject the Solar System Assembly Line theory on that basis.


In which case it was never a theory at all.

I don't want to criticize you for having faith in Jesus, but you're
allowing that faith to lead you down some pretty dark alleys. You
can't pretend the physical world doesn't exist, or doesn't play
by well-understood rules, just because it conflicts with aspects
of your faith.

The Bible is not, and was never meant to be, a treatise on natural
history.
Ads
  #2  
Old June 12th 21, 11:14 AM posted to alt.astronomy
Daniel65
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 75
Default Solar System Assembly Line

John Bode wrote on 12/6/21 12:08 am:
Trimmed the "comp.*" newgroups as this is not topical to any of them.


Hmm!! I hadn't noticed it had been cross-posted to disconnected newsgroups.

Good move!

On 6/2/21 11:07 AM, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
Greetings all,

I have devoted much time to this theory, and it holds up in every
regard.* I have discussed it with people, shown my videos to others,
devout Christians, scientists, and nobody can debunk it with anything
that's not related to some other theory which contradicts it.


That's how the process works, Rick.* If you're going to propose an
explanation for why the solar system looks the way it does today,
that explanation has to do three things:

*- Incorporate current observations;

*- Explain current observations in a way that's better than
** existing theories;

*- Predict new observations that can be tested somehow;

What evidence did you have *for* your conveyor system?* What
observations of the outer planets suggested to you that they are
building new Earths inside of them?* What arrangement of planets
and asteroids suggested to you that Earth-sized bodies have moved
orbits over time?

What primary materials did you study to reach this conclusion?* I mean
the boring "this is what we measured" kind of stuff, like

Seiff et al. (1996) "Structure of the Atmosphere of Jupiter:
* Galileo Probe Measurements", Science, Vol. 272, Issue 5263,
* pp. 844-845

Jacobsen et al. (2009) "Cassini Langmuir probe measurements in
* the inner magnetosphere of Saturn", Planetary and Space Science,
* Vol. 57, Issue 1, pp 48-52

That's just two random papers grabbed off of Google Scholar, but
that's the kind of stuff I'm talking about - observations,
measurements, data.* That's the kind of stuff you need to base
your theory on.

Why did your theory better explain the arrangement and composition of
objects in the solar system than any existing theory?* Again, what
observations can you point to that suggested your theory works better?

I announce today that I am rejecting this theory for one reason:* The
theory states that a Savior is given to each cycle of Earth, and that
the people who lived during that 7,000 year cycle would be saved by
that Savior and not the one all-time Savior that the Bible teaches
exists.* It is enough to discount the entire theory.

I believe in Jesus Christ.

I believe He is man's only and all-time Savior and what is happening to
us on this Earth in this existence is unique and special in His
universe.

I reject the Solar System Assembly Line theory on that basis.


In which case it was never a theory at all.

I don't want to criticize you for having faith in Jesus, but you're
allowing that faith to lead you down some pretty dark alleys.* You
can't pretend the physical world doesn't exist, or doesn't play
by well-understood rules, just because it conflicts with aspects
of your faith.

The Bible is not, and was never meant to be, a treatise on natural
history.


But, if Rick did really believe in Jesus and the Bible, he would have
known that his theory could not possible be correct because, according
to The Bible, there was nothing possible until, on Day One of The
Universe (i.e. about 7,000 years ago), GOD said "Let there be Light!!"
--
Daniel
  #3  
Old June 12th 21, 06:56 PM posted to alt.astronomy
Rick C. Hodgin
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 39
Default Solar System Assembly Line

On Fri, 11 Jun 2021 09:08:31 -0500
John Bode wrote:
That's how the process works, Rick. If you're going to propose an
explanation for why the solar system looks the way it does today,
that explanation has to do three things:

- Incorporate current observations;


One thing the theory states is that Venus and Mercury are in a current
state of recycling. We see that Venus has a very Earth-like atmosphere
up high (about 20 miles up) and similar temperatures (around 100F).
Beneath that is this thick atmosphere of immense pressure, sulfuric
acid, and 870F temperatures. We also see a rotational speed which is
so slow that you could walk faster than the planet is rotating about
its axis at the equator.

The theory claims that this is not random happenstance, but it's part
of the recycling process. The contents of the prior Earth were put
through the recycler. When the recycling atmospheric gases was first
released the planet was much more like our planet in temperature. It
took a long time to heat up to what we see on Venus today (about 6,000
years the theory states).

- Explain current observations in a way that's better than
existing theories;


The age of the sea floor maps are testable and provable today. If you
look at them as adding new material to the sea floor, then the newest
areas are along the fault lines, and the oldest are where the
previously connected land masses separated by the expansion.

That proves smaller Earth. Add in the fact that the trees in Northern
Russia and Northern Canada are the same, and that rivers across
continents align showing where they would've been connected previously,
and it's obvious from the lines on the sea floor as directional
indicators how things fit together.

Have you ever been taught that in school? It's right before our very
eyes, and it's so obvious if you study it.

- Predict new observations that can be tested somehow;


The predictions are this: The other planets (Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus,
Neptune) are manufacturing many Earths in each one right now. There
should be some kind of way to see perturbations on the surface, or in
the rings of Saturn, or by taking very accurate gravity mapping like
they did around the moon. There may be radio waves emitted. I
remember reading a book years ago about Nikola Tesla saying that he
heard aliens speaking on frequencies he was tuning in to. I've always
considered that story false, but maybe it wasn't.

I am one person, sitting alone in my office in a small corner of
Indiana. I have an idea. It stands up to some initial scrutiny, as
per some people I've shared the idea with and sat physically across a
table and answered questions and expanded on it.

It's now up to people smarter and more networked than I am to
investigate it.

I've rejected the theory because it states that each Earth would be
given a Savior. And that in the universe there would be multiple solar
systems like ours, and each of those "Earths" would be also given a
Savior who would save those people. My Bible doesn't teach that, so I
reject it on those grounds alone.

If you're so smart and interested, examine the idea and follow it to
where it takes you. The truth speaks with one voice, and no matter
what spin people put on it, or how it is sauced out over time,
ultimately the truth will speak and be fully known -- and this
notwithstanding Rick's mistakes, or John's mistakes, or anyone else's
mistakes. The thing itself reveals itself to you if you look intently
enough and ask the right questions.

--
Rick C. Hodgin

  #4  
Old June 12th 21, 06:59 PM posted to alt.astronomy
Rick C. Hodgin
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 39
Default Solar System Assembly Line

On Sat, 12 Jun 2021 20:14:21 +1000
Daniel65 wrote:
But, if Rick did really believe in Jesus and the Bible, he would have
known that his theory could not possible be correct because,
according to The Bible, there was nothing possible until, on Day One
of The Universe (i.e. about 7,000 years ago), GOD said "Let there be
Light!!"


There are ways to interpret what's written in scripture which fully go
along with the teachings of the Solar System Assembly Line theory,
which is why I pursued it.

Not one verse changes. Only the understanding of what some of the
verses mean.

It also answers questions like why in Mark 10 did Jesus have to heal a
blind man twice. The first time he said, "I see men as trees walking."
The second time he saw things clearly.

Did Jesus make a mistake? Only partially correct his sight? No. And
this theory explains why that verse exists. And it's true for a dozen
other verses.

You speak about things you don't know, Daniel. You do yourself a
disservice by not inquiring, but rather judging based on your limited
knowledge and understanding. You move like a brute beast, not a
reasoning man. I'm sorry, but if you want to know the truth you'll
have to adapt and seek with inquisitiveness, not judgment.

--
Rick C. Hodgin

  #5  
Old June 13th 21, 03:44 AM posted to alt.astronomy
tesla sTinker[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 17
Default Solar System Assembly Line



On 6/12/2021 10:59 AM, Rick C. Hodgin scribbled:
On Sat, 12 Jun 2021 20:14:21 +1000
wrote:
But, if Rick did really believe in Jesus and the Bible, he would have
known that his theory could not possible be correct because,
according to The Bible, there was nothing possible until, on Day One
of The Universe (i.e. about 7,000 years ago), GOD said "Let there be
Light!!"


There are ways to interpret what's written in scripture which fully go
along with the teachings of the Solar System Assembly Line theory,
which is why I pursued it.


But, there is only one correct true Bible, and one correct
interpretation, and yours, is not it, you lunatic

Not one verse changes. Only the understanding of what some of the
verses mean.

It also answers questions like why in Mark 10 did Jesus have to heal a
blind man twice. The first time he said, "I see men as trees walking."
The second time he saw things clearly.

Did Jesus make a mistake? Only partially correct his sight? No. And
this theory explains why that verse exists. And it's true for a dozen
other verses.

You speak about things you don't know, Daniel. You do yourself a
disservice by not inquiring, but rather judging based on your limited
knowledge and understanding. You move like a brute beast, not a
reasoning man. I'm sorry, but if you want to know the truth you'll
have to adapt and seek with inquisitiveness, not judgment.

  #6  
Old June 13th 21, 10:59 AM posted to alt.astronomy
Daniel65
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 75
Default Solar System Assembly Line

Rick C. Hodgin wrote on 13/6/21 3:59 am:
On Sat, 12 Jun 2021 20:14:21 +1000
Daniel65 wrote:
But, if Rick did really believe in Jesus and the Bible, he would have
known that his theory could not possible be correct because,
according to The Bible, there was nothing possible until, on Day One
of The Universe (i.e. about 7,000 years ago), GOD said "Let there be
Light!!"


There are ways to interpret what's written in scripture which fully go
along with the teachings of the Solar System Assembly Line theory,
which is why I pursued it.

Not one verse changes. Only the understanding of what some of the
verses mean.

It also answers questions like why in Mark 10 did Jesus have to heal a
blind man twice. The first time he said, "I see men as trees walking."
The second time he saw things clearly.

Did Jesus make a mistake? Only partially correct his sight? No. And
this theory explains why that verse exists. And it's true for a dozen
other verses.

You speak about things you don't know, Daniel. You do yourself a
disservice by not inquiring, but rather judging based on your limited
knowledge and understanding. You move like a brute beast, not a
reasoning man. I'm sorry, but if you want to know the truth you'll
have to adapt and seek with inquisitiveness, not judgment.

Yea, but GOD gave me a fully functioning Brain with which to analyse
things .... and my fully functioning Brain tells me that The Bible
(especially the Old Testament) is made up of a lot of stories, told by
word of mouth, over and over again.

Have you ever played a game called "Chinese Whispers"??
--
Daniel
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The solar system is an Earth manufacturing and reclamation system [email protected] Misc 39 December 15th 20 01:43 AM
Moon Base L2 for Solar Sail Assembly Line [email protected] Policy 28 March 9th 16 03:53 PM
evolution of our solar-system as exo-solar-system and why global Archimedes Plutonium[_2_] Astronomy Misc 14 July 31st 09 03:15 AM
ASTRO: H-alpha and K-line Solar images from the 7th LA Astro Pictures 4 January 13th 07 04:10 PM
Solar concentration mirrors in the outer solar system wlm Policy 26 September 13th 04 07:54 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:24 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2021 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.