Sun,moon, earth and mathematics .

by atomant 136 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Viviane

  Noooope. Include Mercury and Netpune. And post your numbers and show your math using NASA numbers. You can say whatever you want, show us the proof.

  BTW, Venus is 0.723 AU from the sun, so the distance between its orbit and Earth's is, on average (because ellipses, how do they work?) 0.277 AU. Earth to Mars delta is about 0.524 AU, not a doubling of 0.277 and definitely not a doubling of 0.3. The asteroid belt is 2.2 - 3.2 AU away, definitely not a doubling there either.

  So, you're wrong. Still. You won't show your work or source data. What's your excuse this time? That differences in millions of miles is quibbling?

  oh, and the sun rotates at different rates depending on location. The poles take about 38days, the equator takes 24 to 25, so no, you're wrong on that too.
• 

  prologos

  OC: "--ramblings of someone who desires that to be the outcome.

  I know I will leave the formulating better questions to others, but I am quite happy to live in an environment that seems not have only utility for us, but artistic perks, not only in the data, but in our minds
  
  
• 

  konceptual99

  I think this thread needs some pseudo philosophy to make it even more like all the other science v nonsense threads we have had.

  It's time to ask what are numbers actually? What do they mean beyond whatever meaning our individual minds ascribe to them? How is a number in my head the same as a number in your head? Numbers used by NASA don't have any more validity than numbers used by me in my head so don't try and tell me I am wrong just because my numbers mean something that you cannot fathom. You don't have a monopoly on the definition of numbers.

  There we go. It's all better now.
• 

  OrphanCrow

  prologos: I know I will leave the formulating better questions to others, but I am quite happy to live in an environment that seems not have only utility for us, but artistic perks, not only in the data, but in our minds

  That's fine. As long as you know that your mathematical view of the universe is not proof of a deity. It is when those numbers are used as a quasi-justification for the existence of "something beyond" that it becomes problematic

  By the way, I find it interesting that you will make rambling, poorly constructed statements most of the time, and then...out of the blue, change your syntax and delivery to a recognizable and understandable form. It reads as tho someone is tag teaming you...I have noticed this strange occurrence on other threads too. Not important...just strange...hmmm...maybe it is an undiscovered pattern...
• 

  prologos

  For those who care: let me sum up my view on this topic like this: Newton said that his discoveries, formulations of natural law where like " finding a particularly well shaped, polished pebble on the beach",-- to me, the ratios embodied in the solar system are that kind of a finely polished find. both are the result of wave action.

  OC: "--you will make rambling, poorly constructed statements most of the time, and then...out of the blue, change your syntax and delivery to a recognizable and understandable form.

  no, no team , I am a isolated solo performer, Patent examiners always complained of the foreign syntax in my applications, one of them deals vaguely with the questions on hand bsw.
• 

  Viviane

  the ratios embodied in the solar system are that kind of a finely polished find. both are the result of wave action.

  What ratios? The ones you claimed were there aren't. What is "wave action" in this context? What kind of wave? What medium? What did it do?
• 

  prologos

  	(A.U.)
  Mercury	0.387 4
  Venus	0.72 7 +3=10
  Earth	1.000 10 +6 =16
  Mars	1.524 16 +12=28 asteroids+24 =52
  Jupiter	5.203 52 +48=100
  Saturn	9.537 100 +96= 196
  Uranus	19.191 196 +192 = 388
  Neptune	30.069
  Pluto	39.482 388

  The corresponding theoretical numbers are: 4.7.10, 16*, ceres:28, 52**, 100. 192, 388***

  *a deviation of 5%, ** a offset of .05% for 72% of all the planetary mass. ***a deviation of 1.75% between theory and nature.

  Venus - Earth, .277 ~ 3 ; Earth - Mars .524 ~ 6 (5.54) ; Mars - Asteroids 1.28 ~12. Ceres to Jupiter 2.403 ~ 24. Jupiter to Saturn 4.334 ~ 48, (-11%), Saturn to Uranus, 9.654 ~ 96, Uranus to Pluto 20,29 ~ 192 (+6%)
  ,
• 

  prologos

  V: :--the sun rotates at different rates depending on location. The poles take about 38days, the equator takes 24 to 25, so no, you're wrong on that too.

  The poles are small, the equator big. 24:38, when adjusted for rotating mass, it is 28.5,-- period. If you are trying to elevate yourself by unfoundedly , shallowly shouting "wrong!", realize how hard it is to look down on people from below.
  
  
• 

  Viviane

  Thank you for posting that. Even your own math shows you are making false claims. Attempts at personal insults doesn't change that fact.

  And for the record, it wasn't hard to look down at all. I love destroying pseudoscience BS.

  Oh, and BTW, since I'm already up here dropping crumbs (and the mic), the only reason you can even pretend you're close is because your math is so bad you had to resort to rounding up and down at each step AND you left out Neptune because including all of the planets shows yet another reason why your hypothesis is wrong (besides, you know, actual math) AND you're still lying about how far away the asteroid belts are. For reference....Located between Mars and Jupiter, the belt ranges from 2.2 to 3.2 astronomical units (AU) from the Sun and is 1 AU thick.

  http://www.universetoday.com/32856/asteroid-belt/#
  

  
  
• 

  konceptual99

  Someone voted me down. At least that's what they thought they did. In my world all numbers mean whatever I want them to mean. Thanks for the glowing endorsement.

  Prove that I am wrong with your NASA numbers.