Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creation Equation
outblaze
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 14 (43019)
06-16-2003 12:15 PM


Being a non-math type, can someone give me the scoop on this "creation equation" found at:
http://www.geocities.com/godisreal_uk/mathintro.htm
(near the bottom of the page).
The claim is that the math proves beyond any reasonable doubt that the scientific account of the origin of the Solar System is not correct!

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by John, posted 06-16-2003 1:10 PM outblaze has not replied
 Message 3 by Percy, posted 06-16-2003 1:10 PM outblaze has not replied
 Message 6 by NosyNed, posted 06-16-2003 4:36 PM outblaze has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 14 (43024)
06-16-2003 1:10 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by outblaze
06-16-2003 12:15 PM


He fails in his first paragraph. It doesn't really matter whether the math is correct or not.
The mathematics demonstrates that the major (planetary) orbits of the Solar System are precisely ordered, and conform to an artificial mathematical equation to within 0.2%. I refer to the equation as The Creation Equation. The mathematics proves beyond any reasonable doubt that the scientific account of the origin of the Solar System is not correct.
In other words, the system can be described mathematically, therefore it couldn't have been formed according to the 'scientific account' which I take to mean 'randomly'. This is absurd. We can describe a lot of things mathematically. This fact doesn't mean those things were created. In fact, small scale random events can produce large scale patterns. The mathematics of this are part of chaos theory. Secondly, the formation of the solar system as per the 'establishment' wasn't a matter of pure random interactions. Things like gravity don't really fall into the 'random' category.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
[This message has been edited by John, 06-16-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by outblaze, posted 06-16-2003 12:15 PM outblaze has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 3 of 14 (43025)
06-16-2003 1:10 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by outblaze
06-16-2003 12:15 PM


The equation has only a single variable, F. In physics, capital F is usually force, as in F=ma (force equals mass times acceleration). Since his equation has only a single unknown it is easily solved:
(2.27 - F)2.09 = 62.8
If I were home I'd use MathCad to give you an exact answer, but just by inspection it appears that F has two roots of approximately 9 and -5.
The author of the webpage is correct in describing the equation as simple, but it has nothing to do with the solar system, and the claims on the webpage are complete nonsense. If you go here:
You'll see that he actually "stole" what he posted from someone else, since this link includes additional data.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by outblaze, posted 06-16-2003 12:15 PM outblaze has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Coragyps, posted 06-16-2003 1:16 PM Percy has not replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 4 of 14 (43026)
06-16-2003 1:16 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Percy
06-16-2003 1:10 PM


Not to mention that he says:
The calculations in this document accept the following figures as absolute.
and goes on to list perihelia, average distances, and aphelia, all of which change over time to varying degrees. The whole thing looks like an alternate statement of Bode's Law, but with much more mental masturbation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Percy, posted 06-16-2003 1:10 PM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Gzus, posted 06-17-2003 7:27 AM Coragyps has not replied

  
Dr Cresswell
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 14 (43038)
06-16-2003 3:25 PM


Isn't there an "Is it Science?" forum here ...
But, the equation can hardly be called a complete description of the solar system. Where does it predict the planetary masses and day lengths? What about moons, asteroids and comets?
And how does he get from a bit of maths to "The math on this site demonstrates that the Solar System is ordered, but more than this, it demonstrates the activity of intelligence"? A demonstration of order (and most astronomers would accept that the solar system is currently fairly ordered - it's governed by gravity after all) is hardly a demonstration of intelligence at work.
Alan

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 6 of 14 (43049)
06-16-2003 4:36 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by outblaze
06-16-2003 12:15 PM


I'm not willing to go over the whole thing. But here is my first guess at what he is doing.
He's doing something like those who produce pyramid numbers do. Messing around with a set ot data points and getting something to fit to them.
He only has to fit to 4 numbers since he uses different equations for the inner and outer soloar system. I suspect that one way to debunk this would be to find some other numbers and make this kind of thing happen with them.
How the heck important is it to spend the time on this. He's left out how he developed the numbers which is annoying. He also is very careless in his use of symbols --- note "pi" here is a variable not the "real" pi. Geez.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by outblaze, posted 06-16-2003 12:15 PM outblaze has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Percy, posted 06-16-2003 5:02 PM NosyNed has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 7 of 14 (43052)
06-16-2003 5:02 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by NosyNed
06-16-2003 4:36 PM


If pi isn't pi then my analysis above is wrong. What is pi?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by NosyNed, posted 06-16-2003 4:36 PM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by NosyNed, posted 06-16-2003 7:12 PM Percy has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 8 of 14 (43064)
06-16-2003 7:12 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Percy
06-16-2003 5:02 PM


One of the pi is the input variable in AU and the others are the real pi. LOL
I still haven't figured out what the heck he is doing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Percy, posted 06-16-2003 5:02 PM Percy has not replied

  
Gzus
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 14 (43106)
06-17-2003 7:27 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by Coragyps
06-16-2003 1:16 PM


mental masturbation?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Coragyps, posted 06-16-2003 1:16 PM Coragyps has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by crashfrog, posted 06-17-2003 3:14 PM Gzus has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 10 of 14 (43164)
06-17-2003 3:14 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Gzus
06-17-2003 7:27 AM


mental masturbation?
As in, it feels like you're thinking, but you're really accomplishing nothing. The same way that eating ramen noodles is "nutritional masturbation."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Gzus, posted 06-17-2003 7:27 AM Gzus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Gzus, posted 06-17-2003 7:32 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
Gzus
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 14 (43193)
06-17-2003 7:32 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by crashfrog
06-17-2003 3:14 PM


right, i'll be using that one frequently from now one

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by crashfrog, posted 06-17-2003 3:14 PM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Parasomnium, posted 07-22-2003 9:02 AM Gzus has not replied

  
Parasomnium
Member
Posts: 2224
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 12 of 14 (46862)
07-22-2003 9:02 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by Gzus
06-17-2003 7:32 PM


Be careful. You have no idea what a mental orgasm is like.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Gzus, posted 06-17-2003 7:32 PM Gzus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by crashfrog, posted 07-22-2003 9:20 AM Parasomnium has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 13 of 14 (46863)
07-22-2003 9:20 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by Parasomnium
07-22-2003 9:02 AM


Be careful. You have no idea what a mental orgasm is like.
One thing's for sure - you need a lot less tissues when you're done.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Parasomnium, posted 07-22-2003 9:02 AM Parasomnium has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by nator, posted 07-22-2003 10:29 AM crashfrog has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 14 of 14 (46872)
07-22-2003 10:29 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by crashfrog
07-22-2003 9:20 AM


quote:
One thing's for sure - you need a lot less tissues when you're done.
Eeeewwww.
(LOL!)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by crashfrog, posted 07-22-2003 9:20 AM crashfrog has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024