Two (or more) objects going in roughly the same direction, same plane (height, depth etc. relative to a certain point), and same speed, at some point in time they are likely to come to each other, a crash. The moon, in relation to the earth, is one example. But they haven’t crashed; or at least not during the last thousands of years. The moon or the earth might have come about following a crash with other planets, or indeed between moon and earth, their earlier versions.
Planets travelling at high speed in the universe. It seems to me there are far fewer collisions of planets than these large objects traversing in the universe(s).
Yes, the forces between two planets sort of “maintain” their distance to each other with the effect that one rotates round the other. This “arrangement” would have come via a period of “adjustment”. It’s not like suddenly the two come near and they hand shake to say 3000 universe hours from now I will orbit round you until such time I get bored, probably after 2 billion orbits, or maybe 5.
Scientists refer to a set of universal constants: the existence of these in the “system” of the universe can be seen in behaviour of planets; the forces between planets is one typical case. When some conditions are met, the two planets will go “hand in hand” for the foreseeable future: to us, eternity. But, perhaps it’s more correct to say, the two planets travelling together in some 3D plane*, due to the existence of some universal constants. Whether one or both had agreed to so, that’s another matter (of consciousness)!
* one planet (Satellite) orbit round the other planet (Host)
* Host planet itself is travelling too
* Host’s trajectory is not linear, or linear relative to trajectories of other planets
* Host and Satellite are travelling in a 3D plane
When we say all these are beyond our understanding, that suggests a higher intelligence, or at least presence of a complex “system”, for which planets adhere to voluntarily or otherwise, or those that refused to comply meet with destruction very soon.
When we say it just “happens”, that means the universal constants either do not exist, or an infinite amount of randomness is happening such that, at least for the earth and its moon, they don’t collide. For the same argument, they don’t “depart” from each other. For us to say so, every day, since our own day 1, is to recognise the infinite amount of randomness that leads to this condition. Remember that if it is randomness, then it is absence of rules or systems (or in this case, constants); it can’t be a mix and match of random behaviour and universal constants: even so, we are in an equally difficult territory of “arrangement”, or “prior arrangment”, or “prior, constant and infinite arrangement”, i.e. in the form of, perhaps, consciousness, decision systems, ethical considerations etc. And that still takes us (or planets, universe) back to presence of some kind of system.
We are very concerned if two objects crash. Vehicles, pedestrians, aeroplanes, continents, trains etc.
For any human-controllable objects, e.g. trains, only qualified operators can drive them.
We are rarely worried about planets coming together and crashing into some fireballs, with resultant energy enveloping us (the earth) into some deformed shape such that “going to the shops” no longer makes any sense.
For us to adhere to some rules of operation (e.g. to be a train driver) is recognitioin of presence of some fundamental rules, e.g. how long it takes for a 200kph train to stop safely without the tea spilling.
Even the behaviour of tea (water) in a mug follows some universal constants.
The issue, then, is more about whether we believe in God in a personal way. That’s a huge leap from the words above about planets. A set of universal constants suggests a system, or pattern. For the universal constants to work in some harmonious ways, is a controller that gives “positive ethical spin” on the whole thing.
