Atheists, here is a 'balls' question ---even for all---

by prologos 224 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • Viviane
    Viviane

    vivian, I can not be 100% wrong when your own charts [ thank you], show Titius bode is 80% right, from Mercury to Uranus

    Correct, you could not be 100% more wrong.

    and my modification makes it 1005 right by applying a different ruler to the same UNCHANGING DATA. and the augmented rules are: minimum orbital difference is .3 AU a 3 in the bode scheme.and 9.6 AU maximum difference in orbit diameter.

    Sorry, this doesn't even approach making sense. Can you rephrase in actual sentences without completely changing what you wrote in the past? The numbers you give now match the math I corrected for you but still aren't a law because they are 100% descriptive, not predictive. Nor do they explain your failure to read a chart.

    while Pluto fits the the doubling outer orbit reach of Bode

    No. No it doesn't You can't just say it, you still have to show math, baby!

    while Pluto fits the the doubling outer orbit reach of Bode

    Observation and me showing you how to do math, so far. You weren't even close to that prior and the Bode-Titius hypothesis was off by >95%.

    !AU=99 light seconds .3 AU= 149.5 light seconds 1/2 of the solar 5 minutes pulsation, the small orbit diameter difference.

    It's actually jus t over 149.7 light seconds. You're getting closer, though!

    Balls in solar array. spaced out in doubling distances. conforming all the laws these balls.

    Still a negative on that. Bode-Titius is still a giant fail and your math even more. However, if it help you to learn, please keep stealing mine! So far my lady balls are still beating yours!

  • prologos
    prologos

    To just show the math on the 20% that bode need correcting, the outer three planets [Pluto being the dwarf].

    if you consider the 'doubling as you go out' scenario,

    Saturn ~ 10

    Uranus ~ 19.6

    Pluto ~ 38.8 the presence of at

    Neptune ~ 29.2 at ~ midpoint suggests the max 9.6 AU rule. primary school math.

    I did not steal your math/chart, I used it can you not see flattery when it stares you in the face? bsw. If I had the modern computer skilles we could display good stuff on this.

    hey, 10 balls lined up in amazing array

    start at the sun and double away.

    of course, ladies have more balls then men, are not all pentential ova present in my 2 year old daughter? coming on later at every lunation?

    so in the battle for immortality, progeny, legacy, resurrection[show me] saved soul [show me] I am done, even if there is

    no Victory with Vivian

  • Viviane
    Viviane

    I did not steal your math/chart, I used it can you not see flattery when it stares you in the face?

    You got it wrong until I showed you and then acted as if you had it all along without crediting the source. That's the same as stealing. Taking the work of others without credit isn't flattery, it's lazy at best and stealing at worst. Why should I thank you for taking what's mine as yours?

    hey, 10 balls lined up in amazing array start at the sun and double away.

    You keep saying that, but every piece of data (including those you stole) show that's not the case.

    of course, ladies have more balls then men, are not all pentential ova present in my 2 year old daughter? coming on later at every lunation?

    You claimed to be 90 and now claim to have a 2 year old daughter? Unlikely. Also, stop talking about her cycle even if it is true. It's just creepy and weird.

  • Caedes
    Caedes

    Prologos,

    You do realise that Pluto's orbit overlaps neptune's orbit right? So which is in the correct position? They can't both be.

    I have already pointed out that Bode's law is not a law because it doesn't apply to other solar systems or to planetary/moon systems either.

    You cannot predict anything with this law because it is not universal. It doesn't even take into account the mass of the planets.

    It seems Viviane has caught you in a lie. Well isn't that a surprise.

  • prologos
    prologos

    Tiger, not a lie, I never said I was 90, but men do not lose their potency as soon as you think.

    of course Pluto comes closer to th Sun than Neptune at times, their 2 orbits are OVERLAPPING [just like the GENERATION]. but their tracks are inclined at different angles to the ecliptic, so the twain shall never meet. but the figures seen on this thread are the median, the average of the distances from the sun. so: do not get me talking about excentricities, for their even more underappreciated and amazing.

    The strange thing is that this doubling with distance sequence is independant of planet mass, although Jupiter of course has wreaked havoc with matter that is as far down as Mars. but Yes. In this solar system the presence of a body's orbit can and has be predicted.

    I am just guessing, perhaps we will discover a universal , common FACTOR that will allow other planetary systems to have 10 ordered and predictable orbits in it. I am speculating here: I could be the pulsations of their parent star, or their natural resonance. We will need way better ways to measure these exoplanets. imagine trying to calculate mercury's orbit by measuring the solar output & duration during transit.

    Perhaps the universal aspect of the ordered bode sequence as amended would be, that an inhabited planetary system will have such longtime stable ratios in it. Show me a 10 planet sequence and I show you an inhabited neighbourhood.

    re older fathers: Prologos propose a law that men shall not have children until 65, their retirement age, why? they would be able to really FULL TIME educate and make them prosper. side effects? how old/young would the wife have to be? half his age?

    vivre la difference in gender and age.

  • prologos
    prologos

    vivian, most of the numbers on YOUR chart are identical we have been working with for decades. they are in the public domain, can not be stolen.

    let every one look at them: 10 solar system orbits,-- starting at .4, all doubling in distance, but gap never smaller than .3 or bigger than 9.6

    If you cant see it, you are in a fix.

  • Caedes
    Caedes

    Your good suggestion to get an education is well meant and I would be at it, if I believed that further SPECIALIZED learning would bolster my understanding of general science much, and pushing 90, I do not need the good path you took to get an educted income carreer; congrats on that again.

    Quote from your post 2902, so one or the other is a lie being as you now deny being 90.

    not a lie, I never said I was 90

    Quote from your post 2991

    Glad to see you have discovered eccentric orbits, hopefully it will make you realise that Bode's law cannot possibly be correct for pluto.

    There is a common factor that can be used to predict planetary positions it's called gravity.

    I am speculating here...I am just guessing...Perhaps

    I'm glad you finally admitted it, just try not to present your speculation and guesswork as if you are talking about real science. Real science requires maths and a 5% accuracy doesn't quite cut it.

  • Viviane
    Viviane

    Tiger, not a lie, I never said I was 90, but men do not lose their potency as soon as you think.

    Yeah, you did. Caedes already posted it.

    vivian, most of the numbers on YOUR chart are identical we have been working with for decades. they are in the public domain, can not be stolen.

    I know. Why wouldn't you post post one that was accurate? Why did you refuse to admit I had already done it until I did it again?

    let every one look at them: 10 solar system orbits,-- starting at .4, all doubling in distance, but gap never smaller than .3 or bigger than 9.6

    10? Which 10 are you looking at? And, so what? That's not predicted by anything, they DO vary by more than 5% of what the Bode-Titius hypothesis sais they would (unlike what you claimed).

    Basically, every claim you have made has turned out to be wrong and as you get caught, you simply retrofit your claim to and act as if that was what you predicted all along.

    You are dreadfully dishonest.

  • prologos
    prologos

    Tiger, a pretty good profile of my past can be made from my posts, so when I said "pushing 90" that generation technically includes you too, but I am not the 'generation' but generating business. let me restae that then : I can form a truthfull sentence that has in it a nine as it's first number.

    real science contains 5% dispersions from a mean - value curve ALL the time, of course math does not. look at the telling tabulation that vivian put up. The "below 5%" stares you in the eye. 8 out of 10 times and even the 95.7 is below the -5% , but is derived form a premise that excludes the restraint .3--9,6 that the planetary spacings reveal.

    When I prefaced my statements By" speculating" "guessing" I am referring to future work, discoveries by younger, better funded and grounded workers than me.

    If I would be as adept at cut and pasting as my teen-age son and not pushing 90, I would VERY Precisely pin down the arguments that are put up by you-all ignoring the repeated definition of the MODIFIED T&B sequence I have presented. but:

    You make me feel so young--.

  • Viviane
    Viviane

    real science contains 5% dispersions from a mean

    Lookout, the "no true scotsman" fallacy with no supporting evidence!

    The "below 5%" stares you in the eye. 8 out of 10 times and even the 95.7 is below the -5% , but is derived form a premise that excludes the restraint .3--9,6 that the planetary spacings reveal.

    Oh, boy, you better show yo work, them numbers seem off! Looks like you still ain't learnt to read a chart yet!

    When I prefaced my statements By" speculating" "guessing" I am referring to future work, discoveries by younger, better funded and grounded workers than me.

    Well, at least you admit it's bullshit, even though you keep trying to claim it's right!

    If I would be as adept at cut and pasting as my teen-age son and not pushing 90, I would VERY Precisely pin down the arguments that are put up by you-all ignoring the repeated definition of the MODIFIED T&B sequence I have presented. but:

    Oh, grampa, being old doesn't give you a pass on spouting BS. You can just write it out and show your math if cut-n-paste is too hard!

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit