by prologos 224 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
no 5% spread about mean in science? please google "main sequence stars" -australian telespope---. and see 5% alive and well in OZ and every where in science, pick your field.
obviously I am not relying on Vivian to prove my viability, veracity, value or virility,-- other than your failed and hollow attempts to cut me down to size--but
I am flattered by the attention a young lady lavishes on me. 7 pages! wow!
no 5% spread about mean in science? please google "main sequence stars" -australian telespope---. and see 5% alive and well in OZ and every where in science, pick your field.
Not lilkely. You made an assertion, now it's on you to back it up with data and examples. At this point it's just someone that has been wrong over and over and over saying something.
obviously I am not relying on Vivian to prove my viability or the other v--ty. but I am flattered by the attention a young lady lavishes on me. 7 pages! wow!
Wrong again. I want to make sure you're pseudo science and woo doesn't infect people that have a chance to learn. This has zero to do with you.
so, with help from junior, here is a TYPICAL science graph with the 5% scattering of data about an established rule.
with time we could likelt find presentations of --'age-dependent increased dementia in men versus ladies in the northen hemisphere' [the lady[s] in red].
BSW. the "pushing - 90" remark is also close to the 5% uncertainty margin. but the "2 year old"- is actually 2.208 my fourfold error.
just to show how silly , hollow your objections are.
so: here again: it is cosmic, not comic,
within 5 %: all 10 major orbits in our planetary disk can be found with these parameters:
starting at .4 AU. with orbit radius difference not smaller than .3AU,
A DOUBLING from planet to planet. but
orbital gap not to exceed 9.6 AU.
Here's a ballsier question, when did God decide to drop out of the equation? There is no issue with putting things in motion, but when did he leave the playing field?
SoP Newton suggested that the planetary arrangemend could be only kept stable, like keplers elipses, by the occasional personal , well timed, placed. paced nudge.
that has not been detected. If
there is a creator, I believe it was all done before the startup, with the move of the kew in billards game so to speak.
balls amde out of genergy, bouncing around a limited space, in law-governed.
God does not talk now, did not 6000 years ago, and neither did the snake.
answer: during the beginning, the billard masterstroke did it all. (or other ball analogies, baseball throw, -- to stay, not stray from topic.
all types of ball games are GREAT fun for us and even the [possible] referee that set it, and the rules, up-- in the first place. and
supplied refreshment with it.
even fireworks to watch
-- from a distance--.
and let's not forget the disk-like objects, galaxies, frisbees, elipticals, like american footballs, rotating like uranus. spinning nutating the tops
Prologos, no offence but you seem to be enjoying this now.....but you are actually being quite irresponsible and dangerous. False information with unjustified claims not only mislead but muddy the waters of what is actually true. It also dilutes the message of how actually we find out truth today and how it is best to research things. Opinions are not equal and not all worthy of respect.
Considering the thread topic, I'd say the idea of "order of spacing" as some sort of theist proof of grand design is rather weak.
In the first place, for the theory to have real weight, all planetary systems would have to conform to the T-B theory. Of course, this is not realistic to expect as there is no way to verify this. So besides our own system, which doesn't seem to conform perfectly to the theory, what percentage of systems would it take to confirm such as a "law"? How exactly does this lend any credence to the idea of grand design, if even in one case the numbers have an acceptable tolerance of accuracy?
Musical notes exist at specific intervals and certain combinations sound pleasing but this isn't anything atheists need to defend as evidence for god. Why should it be any different for the distance relationships of planets?
Snare&Racket, there were accusations of FALSE information, but I am sure my gathering of the data and aligning them in a new way is CORRECT.
I do not believe that this 10 body alignment is by special design, but the cnsequence of all the natural laws work out. As a deist , one would not get personal about it.
There just was an item on Mercury proving it was NOT FORMEND near the Sun, but I personally doubt that. My favoured idea is that the planetary field is Chadni-plate like and the planet orbits are in nodes where matter would gather.
I like to think in terms of Bethhoven's 9th. " Freude, schoener Gottesfunken--" everythink is a jOYful spark, even the Ball games we play.
Twitch: thank you good point. Other planetary systems will have different T&B sequences, with different upper and lower limitations around stars with different Resonances, but there will be a common feature to them, particularly if they are stable enough to harbour life for a evolution-life-time.
thoughts of a deist, not an adeist.
Twitch: thank you good point. Other planetary systems will have different T&B sequences, with different upper and lower limitations around stars with different Resonances, but there will be a common feature to them, particularly if they are stable enough to harbour life for a evolution-life-time.
Do you consider this fact or speculation?
And you didn't answer any of my questions with regard to your thread topic.
