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

by prologos 224 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  prologos

  Viviane bode look-again: why does your deviation percentage for Pluto not follow the 5%max pattern? Pluto is TWICE farther OUT from Uranus as Saturn is IN ? 9.6 AU vs 19.2 as the doubling rule predicts?

  JU 5.2 + 4.8 = SA 10.0

  SA 10.0 + 9.6* = UR 19.6 * 4.8+4.8= 9.6

  UR 19.6 +19.2* = PL 38.8 *9.6+9.6 = 19.2

  PL 38.8 - 9.6 = Neptune 29.2 Neptune is the interloper of the Bode sequence, but it is at the exact orbit where the 9.6 maximum spacing would put it.

  as I pointed out, the spacings do NOT DOUBLE below Earth ( .3 AU) and above Uranus, (9.6) . These two repeated values that are in a 2^4 ratio, have some researchers led to believe that the whole system can be modelled in wavelength. (doubling of distance = halving of frequency).
• 

  prologos

  CO: everything happens dictated/limited by the natural laws, laws that had an origin, beginning too.

  even the (not yet universal) bode sequence law. and

  the results are as good as it gets (try to replicate it).
• 

  prologos

  sir82, The 'who caused the first Cause' argumnet you bring up is based on the correct observation of Cause and EFFECT in our universe.

  it's a sequence that requires movement THROUGH time from timepoint A to B. This movement started at the 'BigB'.

  before that there ws no movement through time (read your einstein).

  with no movement through time, there is no sequencing from cause to effect.

  The first Cause can not be an effect.
• 

  Viviane

  Viviane bode look-again: why does your deviation percentage for Pluto not follow the 5%max pattern? Pluto is TWICE farther OUT from Uranus as Saturn is IN ? 9.6 AU vs 19.2 as the doubling rule predicts?

  Now you're just being silly. Simply, Tituis-Bodes law doesn't work, despite what you say. You said orbital bodies follow Bodes Law (which is actually a hypothesis not matching observation) except for a few bodies, and even then outside standard deviance. You started out showing that the "law" you thought was important didn't describe reality and have simply dug in deeper, making claims that are not proven by observation. The math and observation does not follow the Titius-Bode hypothesis as you claimed.

  Keep digging, but try to show some evidence in the shovel-fulls you keep slinging. So far you say a lot but cite nothing. You aren't winning any hearts or minds by continuing down the path you are on.

  as I pointed out, the spacings do NOT DOUBLE below Earth ( .3 AU) and above Uranus, (9.6) . These two repeated values that are in a 2^4 ratio, have some researchers led to believe that the whole system can be modelled in wavelength. (doubling of distance = halving of frequency).

  That's NOT what you said earlier. And just because you use numbers doesn't not mean you are using math. Can you show your work? You also need to show a citation showing most stars are in a binary formation.
• 

  metatron

  I continue to hope for alternatives to the Big Bang theory that involve the cosmos always having been in existence. There have been anomalies reported but not enough to overthrow the existing astrophysics narrative.

  metatron
• 

  Viviane

  Why do you contiue to hope for an alternative?
• 

  prologos

  vivian, yes, I could show you my work. Organizing data that others collected is a recognized activity in science (see Brahe followed by J. Kepler).

  to redifine bode revisited: bode (doubling distances holds within 5%!) from venus to Pluto. the exceptions are mercury. Neptune at the extremities. so: bode holds with the limitation that planets can

  not be LESS the .3 AU apart (500light seconds diameter), or

  MORE than 9.6 AU apart (500 ls x 32)

  All this regularity being the result of the natural laws, which includes resonances. that did not exist here more than 15 billion years ago.

  A regularity that was contributed to have life get a hold here. at bode 10 from the sun.
• 

  Viviane

  prologos, that last post made no sense. Please show your citations and address the errors in your assertions.

  Once we see the citations and clearly understand where your errors are, then we can move on to resonances and such.

  Thanks!
• 

  prologos

  The solar planetary system orbits have two governing characteristics: they can

  not be LESs than .3 Astronomical Units APART and

  not be MORE than 9.6 AUs apart and

  orbital spacings double as you go out.

  These are the empirical data, not assertions.

  a nice order with ten for us and 52 for 90% for the gig one with all the mass that matters.

  These two orbits were shosen as reference points because they MATTER, if you start feeding the equation with oddball excentrics off-base like Mercury or Mars

  figures, you are going to be way off by the time you get into the TNOs and reach the ort cloud.
• 

  Viviane

  orbital spacings double as you go out.

  We've already shown they don't, why do you continue to repeat ignorance assertions not based on observational reality?

  These are the empirical data, not assertions.

  Show the data from NASA, then. Until then, it IS just assertions, just like your statement that most stars exist in binary systems (for which, BTW, you have yet to show your data).

  These two orbits were shosen as reference points because they MATTER, if you start feeding the equation with oddball excentrics off-base like Mercury or Mars

  figures, you are going to be way off by the time you reach the ort cloud.

  Interesting that you claim something proved by empirical data and then try to explain why it is wrong. You don't get it both ways. Either the Tituis-Bode hypothesis matches observational data or it doesn't. You cannot claim it right and matching observation except when it doesn't.