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

by prologos 224 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  snare&racket

  You have difficulty responding to questions don't you.

  What is your point? you want to put your flag next to an old hypothesis that most physicists would be content to accept as a percieved coincidence or expected parsmeter when under the influence of our laws. Pi is evident in all spherical objects, the golden ratio is also evident all over the universe. We don't say this is evidence of a god, we research why it is that way.... this is how we have gone from horse and cart to space stations in a hundred years.

  I assume you want to stamp 'designed by my god' on it because you have seen something that appears orderly, exact and measurable. As I said, why not stamp pot holes, with perfectly filled puddles. It is almost like the pot hole was 'designed'. You dismiss this analogy too quickly,,when you grasp it you will see why your hypothesis means nothing at all.

  I think you know how weak this is and if you want to stand by it go ahead. The fact you are talking about these structures with terminology suxh as BIG BALLS makes me believ you are a half witted troll or a half witt. Either way you are offering nothing new to the world.
• 

  Viviane

  so S&R i and those concerned:: if you are really interested and to seriously read, I checked my figures, and they are CORRECT. rechecked, google it please.

  So, in the interest of accuracy, if you claim these are YOUR numbers, then please show your work. Otherwise, please show a citation.

  Bode nos. are expressed in 1/10 AU. Astronomical units. No orbit is more than 5% off the bode/titius prediction. look at it please. if you have other numbers they are bogus.

  So, you haven't define specifically what you intend the bode number to mean. Please do that. You own chart appears to simultaneously use AU and and 1/10th AU units. Is there a reason for that? Did you compare your numbers with NASA? I am just wanting to make sure that when you say any other numbers are bogus, you have a good solid foundation for saying so, particularly since you said no orbit was off more than 5% of predicted except for the two that were.

  Which is it? Some or none?

  Caedes, debunk the numbers yourself, do not use a spokesman please.

  8 planets in a geometric progression sequence within 5% accuracy. a doubling 7 times , 2^8?

  Quite an amusing position to take since you have yet to show any work or citations and can't count properly. It's 7 planets that come close, that two are way out of proportion.
• 

  snare&racket

  Also we use a p value of below 0.05 in science, 5% would be outside statistical significance , we consider that within the mechanism of chance.

  Ignoring that, becuase you are saying the 'design' accuracy is within 5%......which makes your god a shambolic designer. Would you even buy a watch that was within 5% accurate?

  come on man, this is weak.
• 

  prologos

  Snare&Racket, why in this particular sub-tropic of the big orbiting balls can you not see the amazing progression based on the .3 AU , doubling from Venus to Pluto, but with two equally spaced planets inserted at the ends?

  5% accuracy? look at the graphs of most scientific research results scattered around the mean curve. other factors are at play that explain them there too.

  Why is the bode unit .3 AU? well, The astronomical society has declared 1AU to be the average distance from the sun to our planet, and when all the planet orbits are broight down to their smallest integre denominator, [by the Bode law], the earth ends up with designation 10.

  Did I say designer? God? of course there must be a NATURAL explanation apart from the idea of 'fine tuning' and ironically

  The answer was perhaps treated on another topic.

  BSW: analizing and organising existing [ancient] data into meaningful ways is a recognized and fruitfull scientific endeavour. think what Kepler did with the work of Brahe, 300 years ago: derived orbit formulae, that we still use now to calculate satellite, asteroid and tno', orbits that showed SEDNA also fitting into the bode sequence.

  Am I a dim-wit, nit-wit whatever? well, I enjoy every moment of it. and hyperbole, if appropriate, double-entendre are great MARKERS high-points in thinking, attention-getters. so;

  I wish people look at the figures, try to falsefy them rather than comment on my mental health. I do not like to be the center of that kind of attention.
• 

  Giordano

  So did God create the following as well as all the lovely balls?

  http://www.cracked.com/article_19117_7-horrible-ways-universe-can-destroy-us-without-warning.html#ixzz2jzGrySov actual shooting stars do exist. Yes, there are very real stars -- as in "great balls of nuclear fire a million miles across" -- with a velocity so great that they can actually escape the gravitational pull of their galaxies and roam free throughout the universe. These freewheeling stars are the Hells Angels of the cosmos. sun-size balls of nuclear energy zooming wherever they want at speeds of up to 4,000 kilometers per second, burning everything they come across.

  Then there are those pesky asteroids.

  For instance the Pan-STARRS telescope system has found no less than 19 completely unknown asteroids that pose a potential danger to Earth. And these have been buzzing around a mere 7.5 million kilometers away. Universally speaking, that's not on our doorstep -- that's right in our living room.

  Science has also found out that black holes can move about at terrible velocities, too! there are hundreds of rogue black holes roaming our galaxy alone.

  Galactic Cannibalism is another problem. Basically, smaller galaxies succumb to the gravity of a bigger one and are slowly absorbed into it, thus adding to its mass and making it even larger....... one of the bigger galaxies that's heavily into eating its kin is Andromeda. our closest neighbor that is way bigger than our galaxy. http://www1.ucsc.edu/currents/02-03/0113/debris.html

  The Gama Ray Burst is nothing less than a Death Star-style destruct-o-beam, but on a cosmic scale. It's caused by a particularly massive star collapsing into a black hole, which initiates a supernova explosion, which in turn emits twin energy flares in opposite directions. Each of these flares has energy levels that make even the supernovas that birthed them blush. A typical burst releases as much energy in a few seconds as our sun will in its entire 10 billion-year lifetime.
  Read more: http://www.cracked.com/article_19117_7-horrible-ways-universe-can-destroy-us-without-warning_p2.html#ixzz2k58bDJNf
• 

  prologos

  Giordano, of course: image the disaster when the moon wass blasted, torn out of the proto-earth? you would get serious blisters in that one. but the end-result: look at the nearly impossible rings of Saturn paper-thin at the scale of 2 football fields., more than one delicate balance around us. happening because of natural laws, without [further] tinkering, intervention.buthje socalled disaster you mentioned are the events in the FORGE where good stuff is forming.

  you cant have one without the other, brother.
• 

  Viviane

  look at the nearly impossible rings of Saturn paper-thin at the scale of 2 football fields

  This statement is born of ignorance. Many objects in our solar system have rings.
• 

  kassad84

  a toast to insults in order to prove a point
• 

  prologos

  please say the "ignorance" word in front of mirror, for it seems to reflects your mindset, at least on this subject. or is it your upbringing?

  Of course there are other delicate rings in the solar system even at least one ASTEROID has rings.and even counter -revolving moons all that speaks of inherent stability and delicate balance functioning for billions of years.

  your assertion of "OFF" the bode sequence .3 AU to 9.6 AU orbit spacings are "bogus" which ones?
• 

  Viviane