The stars fought from heaven. The stars in their orbits fought against Sisera.(Judges 5:20) NLT
Kepler’s laws are the Achilles Heel of popular science (SciPop) because, even though they’re empirical, no known cause for them has been identified.
At least, nothing beyond untestable speculation which has been tailored to fit the Star Trek narrative which appears to be the backbone of SciPop. It’s no better than SciFi. We use it as an example of when faith is necessary in science. It goes like this:
What is Faith?
- Start by asking this question:
- In Kepler’s 1st law,
- what’s the source of gravity at focus 2?
Now it doesn’t actually matter what response we get, because whatever it is it’s a statement of faith. The standard explanation is that there’s nothing at focus 2, that’s just the second focus of the ellipse. This is the same as saying that planetary orbits are elliptical because they’re ellipses. It’s a denial of the need for a cause. It’s also circular reasoning.
One of the members of the Twitter community went to the trouble of coding their own planetary orbit simulator in an attempt to refute our position that Johannes Kepler didn’t understand his 1st law. He’s referring to us in this quote:
Some people find counter-intuitive that the planets follow elliptical orbits with just one object in one focus. Some of these people are really vocal saying Kepler was wrong (or even that Kepler didn’t understand his own laws). What we are going to do is to trace the trajectory of an object subject to a gravitational field, and look if it traces an ellipse.– FlatSlugBrains
Now this sort of thing is a common tactic used by atheist science trolls (ASTs) to intimidate us but it’s not anything to worry about. Making a computer model of a desired outcome in order to prove a point is inductive circular reasoning. The planetary orbit simulator describes an effect, not a cause.
Computers only know what they’re told. To date they aren’t capable of independent original work. Computer models can only ever produce a result which is a restatement of the assumptions that were used to code the model. If you tell a computer to plot an ellipse around a single focus, don’t declare a philosophical victory when it does, it’s incapable of any other outcome. In computer lingo it is known as: garbage in = garbage out.