It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Orbits in our solar system proof of divine scientific interference?

page: 2
24
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 25 2016 @ 02:35 PM
link   
I am glad I am not the first person to point out the rounding issues and approximations used.

If there was some great force that designed all of this, why aren't their numbers perfect? Perhaps humans number systems are flawed and to blame? Are any of these calculations interesting when performed in bases other than 10? What makes base 10 so special?




posted on Feb, 25 2016 @ 02:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim
For your information I am an atheist, agnostic at best. Gods, aliens, ancient astronauts, take your pick, but I am actually not religious at all. My question in the title is general exchange «God» with whatever intelligent force you'd like.


The answer is still 'no'. You can give whatever defining figure you want and say "does this information dictate intelligent force"? and the logic you're using is still flawed at it's core.

The numbers only mean anything because you've given meaning to them. They are only relevant when considering earth days, thus subjective to the perspective from earth and earth alone. The sum of the numbers ISN'T an exact one like you claim it to be, and you're picking and choosing information to fit your preconceived notion and rejecting anything that doesn't.

The totality of your concept is flawed at it's core because you are making a conclusion and then finding things to support it rather than finding the evidence and making the conclusion.


originally posted by: Utnapisjtim
These numbers are evidence of interference and manipulations as far as I see


The only thing that's manipulating these numbers is you. You round them up and claim 'look, it's exact and fits with my preconceived concussion!'

Do you not see the absurdity with this kind of reasoning?


originally posted by: Utnapisjtim
Yes, but that's not math is it?


No, what you've done is claimed that the sum of a couple of numbers equals something it actually doesn't, and you needed to round up to make it fit with your concept.

That's not math, that's manipulating the information and being deceptive.



originally posted by: Utnapisjtim
Purposely adjusted? Please explain.


I did explain in the very quote your responding to.

you claim that the sum of the days equals exactly 1000. when the sum of the days equals 999.641.

You're adjusting the information to fit your preconceived conclusion.

Not only, but you fail to understand that the length of orbits change. they are only what they are now in this very instance of time, but a million years ago they were different, and a million years from now they are different.

Even Earth itself is gradually moving away from the sun. Nothing is static.



originally posted by: Utnapisjtim
Again your bias fools you. I am not religious, I am posing a question in a religious forum to see whatever people related to religion reacts to this.


Your flawed logic has nothing to do with my view on religion. You are still using flawed logic, with or without religion.

Your question is invalid because it's based off of several false premises and draws conclusions that have no significant, lead to know actual conclusions, provide no evidence for anything, and you need to manipulate the data to fit your conclusion.



originally posted by: Utnapisjtim
The given planets are the five closest neighbouring planets in space and the only five visible to the naked eye.


And that means what to anything?

If some intelligent being wanted to line up orbits, why not do it to everything? why not do it to the rest of the planets? why not actually make it exactly 1000? why not keep the length of orbit static instead of gradually lengthening and only now do they appear to be closely related?



originally posted by: Utnapisjtim
I'd say you show a failing judgement seeing you are clearly biased and attack me rather than checking out the numbers and fractions used in the OP.


How am I biased?

False information, manipulating data, false premises, illogical conclusions span across all belief systems and lack there of.



originally posted by: Utnapisjtim
but these numbers don't lie. I am not making this up.


You're right, the numbers don't lie, the numbers state that they are not exactly 1000, but you claim they do. That makes you the liar.

Your logic is beyond flawed.



posted on Feb, 25 2016 @ 02:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim
a reply to: Ghost147
You're barking up the wrong tree. If you mean my equations are wrong


You intentionally altered the numbers to fit your agenda...

999.641 is not 'exactly 1000' like you claim it to be. are you that delusional?


originally posted by: Utnapisjtim
a reply to: Ghost147produce the correct ones.


The level of facepalming in this thread is giving me bruises.

You made a claim, I already have shown how it is false.

It's not up to me to produce 'the correct equations' because there aren't any correct equations! Not only that, but you're the one making claims. It's not up to any of us to provide evidence, you're making the claims, not us.

Your logic in the op makes absolutely no sense, and the information within it is entirely subjective to this very moment in time, and only on this very planet during this very moment in time. The information means absolutely nothing anywhere else, and the 'pattern' (which doesn't exist in the first place because you needed to alter the data to fit your conclusion) also doesn't apply to anything else, nor is it even static.



posted on Feb, 25 2016 @ 02:50 PM
link   
Planetary orbits have to be in harmonic ratios in order for the long-term accumulated perturbations in the orbit of each planet caused by other planets to cancel out.

The orbital radius and period is proportional to the mass of the object. Keplers laws of motion will explain in great detail.



posted on Feb, 25 2016 @ 03:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Utnapisjtim

I noticed, but didn't want to point it out.

But the answer is still "no." Orbits are proof of a lot of theories, but I don't see religious divinity being one of them.



posted on Feb, 25 2016 @ 03:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: stormcell
Planetary orbits have to be in harmonic ratios in order for the long-term accumulated perturbations in the orbit of each planet caused by other planets to cancel out.

The orbital radius and period is proportional to the mass of the object. Keplers laws of motion will explain in great detail.


Now, that was the kind of answer I was looking for. Please, could you point me in the right direction? Is there any understandable literature on this particular subject? I suspected exactly that, but these numbers still amaze me. Have you any idea how long time it would have taken the planets to order themselves like they have? Kind of like if you place hundreds of metronomes on a common suspended surface, they will adjust to each other over a relatively period of time and synchronise themselves to click together. Pretty amazing.


edit on 25-2-2016 by Utnapisjtim because: added video + oi



posted on Feb, 25 2016 @ 03:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147

Nice....
/



posted on Feb, 25 2016 @ 03:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147

Aye.

In fact, it is not surely proof that the Magaratheans built the Earth. For the mice? I think it must do!



posted on Feb, 25 2016 @ 03:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim

originally posted by: stormcell
Planetary orbits have to be in harmonic ratios in order for the long-term accumulated perturbations in the orbit of each planet caused by other planets to cancel out.

The orbital radius and period is proportional to the mass of the object. Keplers laws of motion will explain in great detail.


Now, that was the kind of answer I was looking for. Please, could you point me in the right direction? Is there any understandable literature on this particular subject? I suspected exactly that, but these numbers still amaze me. Have you any idea how long time it would have taken the planets to order themselves like they have? Kind of like if you place hundreds of metronomes on a common suspended surface, they will adjust to each other over a relatively period of time and synchronise themselves to click together. Pretty amazing.

What you're looking for is here. It occurs naturally, because of gravity and lots and lots of time. Outliers end up with non-harmonic orbits, like nonperiodic comets. But for the most part orbital motion will sort itself into these patterns.

Saturn's and Jupiter's moon systems both have resonance patterns of their own, in fact.



posted on Feb, 25 2016 @ 04:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ghost147
...

And then you post the numbers, which is actually 999.641.

You're reaching....

Wait... what happens if we take the first three numbers and turn them upside down! that's right... 666, looks like the devil really did it.
...


Calling him out on 8.616 Hours short of 1000 days? If it was done on purpose, perhaps all of the equations are balanced in the best possible way to be as close as possible on all points (I wouldn't dream, or nightmare, of working out the math to determine whether or not that's actually true.) Prime numbers, PI, PHI, multiple planets orbits involved? If it's actually done "on purpose", I'd say 8.616 hours of rounding is fairly impressive. If it is "just the way things worked out" naturally, without some sentient intelligence involved, well, I'd say that's beyond fairly impressive and into the realm of hyphenated strings of [snip] words of high praise!

And then you become the first one to interject silly play-with-numbers-as-if-they're-pictures numerology in your attempt to argue against? As of when I began writing this post, you're the only one who used any sort of "numerology" in a post in this thread.



posted on Feb, 25 2016 @ 04:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: dogstar23
Calling him out on 8.616 Hours short of 1000 days?


Yes, I am.

If the conclusion is "this must have been done by an intelligent being" then why isn't it precisely 1000 hours?

Why doesn't this apply to anything else, just this handful of plants?

What is the significance behind the number 1000? Why is it any more significant than any other number?

These factors a all issues within his concept.


originally posted by: dogstar23
And then you become the first one to interject silly play-with-numbers-as-if-they're-pictures numerology in your attempt to argue against?


It was sarcasm because the notion that 1000 is significant is ridiculous in the grand scope of his concept. 666, however, does hold some significance, but in the end the way that someone came to the conclusion (by picking and choosing which planets to add up to any given number) is ridiculous.



posted on Feb, 25 2016 @ 04:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147 and others in denial

How do you explain the following regarding Earth and Mercury's orbits:

365.2425 days / 115.88 days = 3.151902831
π / 3.151902831 = 0.9967289038
π = 3.141592654

==> That is Mercury's orbit showing a 99.67% proximity for Pi

And Venus:
φ = 1.618033989 golden proportion is (φ-1) = 0.618033989

365.2425 days / 583.92 days = 0.6255009248
(φ-1) / 0.6255009248 = 0.9880624704
and
583.92 days / 365.2425 days = 1.59871866
1.59871866 / φ = 0.9880624703

==> Venus displays the golden proportion with an accuracy of 98.81%



posted on Feb, 25 2016 @ 04:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim
a reply to: Ghost147 and others in denial

How do you explain the following regarding Earth and Mercury's orbits:

365.2425 days / 115.88 days = 3.151902831
π / 3.151902831 = 0.9967289038
π = 3.141592654

==> That is Mercury's orbit showing a 99.67% proximity for Pi

And Venus:
φ = 1.618033989 golden proportion is (φ-1) = 0.618033989

365.2425 days / 583.92 days = 0.6255009248
(φ-1) / 0.6255009248 = 0.9880624704
and
583.92 days / 365.2425 days = 1.59871866
1.59871866 / φ = 0.9880624703

==> Venus displays the golden proportion with an accuracy of 98.81%


Funny you only chose the planets that give you a close to 100% answer and none of the other planets that come nowhere near 100%.

You also used different equations to get the answer. Why not use the equations you used for Venus with Mercury and the other way round? Or use those same equation for the other planets in our solar system?
edit on 253825/2/1616 by TerryDon79 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 25 2016 @ 04:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim
a reply to: Ghost147 and others in denial

How do you explain the following regarding Earth and Mercury's orbits


Let me answer your question with another question.

How do you explain that 99.99% of all other known orbits in the galaxy have nothing to do with pi at all?

It's rhetorical, I'll answer that for you.

It's because the .01% that do are completely coincidental!



posted on Feb, 25 2016 @ 04:47 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79

It's doubly meaningless, considering that an Earth day has nothing to do with EARTH's orbital period, much less the other planets.



posted on Feb, 25 2016 @ 04:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: AshOnMyTomatoes
a reply to: TerryDon79

It's doubly meaningless, considering that an Earth day has nothing to do with EARTH's orbital period, much less the other planets.


Precisely.

The totality of the OP's concepts are based off of totally meaningless foundations that lead to conclusions that are also formed off of false premises.

There is no significance within any of the numbers or correlations he portrays, and he refuses to acknowledge that half of the rest of the solar system doesn't work under his concept, 99.99% of the rest of the galaxy doesn't work under his concept and virtually everything in the universe doesn't work under his concept.



posted on Feb, 25 2016 @ 04:58 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79

That only shows you haven't even read or understood the OP. Only the inner planets display Pi and Phi. The cycles of 1, 8, 15 and 12 years shows synchronicity with Sol and Earth in such a way that they draw stars across the solar system.

With the given synodic periods as listed in the NASA tables in the OP, mark off these alignments 'round Sol, and you end up with a near perfect equal triangle together with Mercury, a pattern which repeats it self due to a few days difference, but the drawing still looks like a triangle. Next, like it's been displayed in a bunch of threads and other places Venus uses 8 years to draw a near perfect pentagram when it aligns with Earth and Sol, and how this knowledge has been know lit. for ages. Next, in 15 years the same thing happens with Mars, only instead of a triangle or a pentagon, it draws a heptagram, and then Jupiter with its endecagram. This stuff is just as REAL and obvious to anyone with a calculator and an almanac— as the Earth being round is elementary for sailors.

If you find anything wrong in my numbers, then say so, and show me how much more accurate your own measures are. This crap is REAL. You have issues with Kepler and Newton, not me. This synchronicity can be explained sensibly and scientifically using the finest of modern science. Order from chaos.
edit on 25-2-2016 by Utnapisjtim because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 25 2016 @ 05:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ghost147

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim
When you see the orbits of planets Mercury, Venus, Mars and Jupiter, there is a synchronicity you just can't deny


Let's humor this notion for just a moment and say that something really determined the 'synchronicity' of these orbits.

Now, please explain to me why the only logical conclusion that can be reached just so happens to be the god you choose to follow?

Explain how it isn't determined by Aliens

Explain how it isn't determined by Krishna/Zeus/Odin or any other god that isn't yours.

Explain how you came to the conclusion that it is your god and only your god and cannot possibly be anything else other than your god.


originally posted by: Utnapisjtim
Thread I made on the fact that the orbits of Mercury, Venus and Mars you get almost exactly 1000 days


And then you post the numbers, which is actually 999.641.

You're reaching....

Wait... what happens if we take the first three numbers and turn them upside down! that's right... 666, looks like the devil really did it.


originally posted by: Utnapisjtim
So what do you guys think? Are these orbits and the internal synchronicity involved with these planets somehow proof that somebody up there is having fun with us?


No. This proves absolutely nothing.

You've simply concluded that the only logical answer to the numbers that you have purposely adjusted in order for fit your concept isn't coincidence, but it is in fact a magical invisible being that for no apparent reason decided to make these particular planets add up to a specific, but not exact, number, a number which holds no significance what so ever, and a number that is only subjectively viewed from our perspective because "days" according to Earth is not at all a significant or valuable source of determining time.

Not all the planets in the solar system, not all the planets in the galaxy, not all the planets in the universe, but a small handful that you've chosen to presuppose a nonsensical conclusion which really represents nothing at all.

You are simply demonstrating that you require to alter the information in the universe around you because you are so desperate to prove your god exists.




This by far, has been my favorite response.

Like, WTF...

Why can't it be a computer program? Why can't we be in some sort of simulation where the higher power is actually higher dimensional entities seemingly like Gods to us?

Just like Ghost147 have said, why does it have to be your God but not like Buddha or some Hindu God?

Divine intervention?

Like.. explain Divine to me because that word is super annoying/unscientific.



posted on Feb, 25 2016 @ 05:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Utnapisjtim

Ok. So there's Mercury, Venus, Earth and Mars in the inner solar system. Use the first equation for all of those 4 planets and see how close you get to π. Then use the 2nd equation. No using any new equations or other numbers. Do it EXACTLY like you did in your post above.

Also noted is that for some of your equations you use 3 planets, then 4 then use some out of the inner solar system. So I'm not sure you understand how stuff works.

If you say there's intelligent design and its down to your equations then using your first equation should give an accurate number. Sadly, not a single equation you have done is 100%. Even your basic adding skills were rounded up to get your special number.
edit on 250625/2/1616 by TerryDon79 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 25 2016 @ 05:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: Utnapisjtim

Ok. So there's Mercury, Venus, Earth and Mars in the inner solar system.


No, Mars is one of the outer planets. One would think people discussing planetary orbits would at least know what the Solar system looked like, don't you think?


I speak about all the planets visible to the naked eye. Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn. While Mercury and Saturn can be hard to spot, the others are easily visible to the naked eye.
edit on 25-2-2016 by Utnapisjtim because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join