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: 8
24
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 28 2016 @ 04:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim
a reply to: wdkirk

That would depend on what you call God or gods. Jesus says God is love. Are you saying we don't need love? Genesis 1 explains God as the Forces of Nature, and goes on to describe how this God (the Forces of the Universe) made everything in seven stages, and supposedly this process ended with the creation of two humans called Adam and Eve (there were plenty people around when Adam was made). Genesis is a riddle and it even reveals the age of Planet Earth. Supposedly God created everything in 6 stages of 1000 years each, and supposedly one day for God is like 1000 years for us. He is supposed to have rested while Adam and Eve lived and died, about 1000 years where God is resting and Adam sweating. This cycle of creation supposedly started with the creation of the Earth and ended about 6000 years ago with the creation of Adam when God would rest until Noah's kingdom was flooded. Supposedly Adam was a human clone of some demiurge calling himself Jahveh.

6000 x 365.25 x 1000 = 2 191 500 000
5777 x 365.25 x 1000 = 2 110 049 250
SUM = 4 301 549 250 years

According to Google Earth is 4 543 000 000 years old, according to Genesis and the Hebrew calendar Google's almost right. Or maybe God counts the Sabbaths too?


Where do you get 5777 from?

4 301 549 250 Is almost 4 543 000 000
Another almost number. You're only 241.5 MILLION years out on that number. Not a big deal, right?




posted on Feb, 28 2016 @ 06:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim
a reply to: Ghost147

Whatever


Ah yes, the tell tale response of a person who just lost an argument.


originally posted by: Utnapisjtim
a reply to: Ghost147
I gave quite a few of those posters stars for great answers.


That's great!

It's unfortunate, however, that you consider them "annoying and rude". If you didn't realize this yet, they all agree with me.


originally posted by: Utnapisjtim
a reply to: Ghost147
I agree fully with Mandroid and respect several of these posters for their honest takes on why these ratios are the way they are.


You agree fully, yet you haven't once admitted the concepts within the OP are false.


originally posted by: Utnapisjtim
a reply to: Ghost147
There is nothing wrong with my numbers


Ghost147 For the third or fourth time now, there is nothing wrong with your calculations. No one is arguing you didn't calculate it correctly.

originally posted by: Ghost147
You're right, the numbers don't lie.


Ghost147
You DID adjust your numbers. How is saying "Exactly 1000" the same as saying 999.641?
That has nothing to do with your math at all.

So I'll say yet again, no one is denying your calculations are correct or not. The only thing we are pointing out is your conclusion that the calculations must mean, or highly suggest, an intelligent influence.


originally posted by: Utnapisjtim
a reply to: Ghost147
and these planets' synodic cycles and the ratios involved are REAL (even when rounding)


No one is denying they exist!

Seriously?!? do you even speak English??

How do you not understand what we're telling you?

Nothing is wrong with your calculations, no one is saying that these numbers don't exist, what we are rejecting is your conclusion that these numbers have any sort of significance at all


originally posted by: Utnapisjtim
a reply to: Ghost147
and for the millionth time, I am NOT religious


Jesus christ! (figure of speech) you can't possibly be serious.

How many times have we all said that it doesn't matter if your religious or not. Your logic is flawed, and that spans all belief systems or lack there of.

I'm beginning to think your just a troll. No one could possibly be this blind and delusional. It's as if you don't even read the responses you're getting before you hit 'reply'.

Just look at how many times we have stated your religious views don't matter...


originally posted by: Ghost147
THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH IF YOU ARE RELIGIOUS OR NOT!!!!

originally posted by: Ghost147
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.

originally posted by: Ghost147
I stated [you were religious] in my first post and immediately withdrew the accusation once you stated you weren't. I've acknowledged that you aren't several times since my first post. Why do you keep bringing it up?

originally posted by: Ghost147
(in response to your post where you said "What difference would it make if I were a Christian?")
NOTHING AT ALL!!!!

No one gives a damn if you're christian or not!



originally posted by: Utnapisjtim
a reply to: Ghost147
I don't believe in the bogus theory coined «Intelligent Design»


I'm not saying you do. The only thing I'm responding to is your conclusion that these numbers lead to the likelihood of some intelligent interference.

Is that not what you're suggesting?


originally posted by: Utnapisjtim
a reply to: Ghost147
I don't adhere to bronze age ethics or your neolithic way of needing to have the last say


It has nothing to do about having the last word. All you need to do is admit you were wrong.

You've already agreed that you've had answers that completely discredit your OP, so why not just say "sorry guys, I was mistaken" and everyone can actually respect you and move along their way.


originally posted by: Utnapisjtim
a reply to: Ghost147
I asked a sincere question in the title about the supposed divine nature of how the Universe orders itself according to the Laws of Physics.


And it was answered, several times.

And we showed you how your logic is flawed

And we showed you how your numbers have no significance

And we've showed you how your conclusions are based off of a False premise.

Your question has been thoroughly answered. So just admit that "sorry, I was mistaken"


originally posted by: Utnapisjtim
a reply to: Ghost147
ACTUALLY, if you had pulled your head out of your arse you would understand that most people in that list you boast allegiance with actually COMPLIES to the numbers and ratios posted in the OP


Yes, INCLUDING ME!!!! Can you really be THAT blind? Like honestly? No one has denied that the numbers exist!

Not one single person

However, we HAVE rejected your conclusion that those numbers have any sort of significance what so ever, or even remotely suggest an intelligent influence.

Every single person in that list is stating that.


originally posted by: Utnapisjtim
a reply to: Ghost147
it is perpetual and recurring


Uh, no... it's not.

It only is evident right now, at this very moment in time, from our perspective alone.

It is entirely coincidental that those numbers exist.

It is entirely natural that those numbers exist

Those numbers have absolutely no significance what so ever

What what perpetual/recurrences are you talking about? It's 4 planets. not the entire solar system. not the entire galaxy. not the entire universe. They only occur in 4 planets, and even then they are not precise.

the numbers have no significance and do not give credit to the likelihood of an intelligent influence.


originally posted by: Utnapisjtim
a reply to: Ghost147
Most of the people in that list I agree fully with, but you and TerryDon79 are obviously unable to understand that.


Terry and myself BOTH agree that those numbers exist. The only thing we (and every single other person in the previous list) are saying is that the numbers have no significance and do not give credit to the likelihood of an intelligent influence.


originally posted by: Utnapisjtim
a reply to: Ghost147
I bet most of the people in that list of yours think you are a narrow-minded trolling schmock.


Yeah, I'm sure that's why most of those people have quoted my posts in agreement, and how nearly all of them are on my friends list.

It's because i'm such an incredible troll...


It's like I'm having a conversation with a pile of dirt....
edit on 28/2/16 by Ghost147 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 29 2016 @ 03:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim
a reply to: wdkirk

That would depend on what you call God or gods. Jesus says God is love. Are you saying we don't need love? Genesis 1 explains God as the Forces of Nature, and goes on to describe how this God (the Forces of the Universe) made everything in seven stages, and supposedly this process ended with the creation of two humans called Adam and Eve (there were plenty people around when Adam was made). Genesis is a riddle and it even reveals the age of Planet Earth. Supposedly God created everything in 6 stages of 1000 years each, and supposedly one day for God is like 1000 years for us. He is supposed to have rested while Adam and Eve lived and died, about 1000 years where God is resting and Adam sweating. This cycle of creation supposedly started with the creation of the Earth and ended about 6000 years ago with the creation of Adam when God would rest until Noah's kingdom was flooded. Supposedly Adam was a human clone of some demiurge calling himself Jahveh.

6000 x 365.25 x 1000 = 2 191 500 000
5777 x 365.25 x 1000 = 2 110 049 250
SUM = 4 301 549 250 years

According to Google Earth is 4 543 000 000 years old, according to Genesis and the Hebrew calendar Google's almost right. Or maybe God counts the Sabbaths too?


Where do you get 5777 from?


5777 is 2016 in the Hebrew calendar (it hasn't really started yet, it starts at Rosh Hashannah in October.


4 301 549 250 Is almost 4 543 000 000
Another almost number. You're only 241.5 MILLION years out on that number. Not a big deal, right?


Yes, and so is the age of the universe and any other date older than a few hundred years. I knew you'd jump at this. The age I found with Google, is that exact? I didn't think so. My point is, Genesis says the Earth is about 4.5 billion years, NOT 6000 years. So what is the exact age of Earth, geological speaking, and at what point would you say the pile of crap that ended up being our planet, at what point did that ball of dust become a planet?
edit on 29-2-2016 by Utnapisjtim because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 29 2016 @ 05:01 AM
link   
a reply to: Utnapisjtim

what about the Tibetian callendar from the Bon? Its currently dated as 2143 by this much older calendar... when extrapolating data? best to use all available data before forming a hypotheisis were numbers are involved... even then the constants variable to some degree depending on location solar system etc.



posted on Feb, 29 2016 @ 06:36 AM
link   
a reply to: Utnapisjtim

Heh that's right...
Psalm 90:4 For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night.

2 Peter 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.



posted on Feb, 29 2016 @ 07:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: TerryDon79

You are wrong. Morty did it. He also admitted to crucifying Christ and taking down the towers.


He lied.

It was me

Uncle Grandpa? Why... I havent see you since you had that girl sit on your face since that driving lesson.



posted on Feb, 29 2016 @ 07:37 AM
link   
a reply to: 5StarOracle

the southern cross constellation is where time is found in that quote... as if charted all 365 days it forms a perfect circle... applying numbers and maths to that circle yeilds the concept of time same as the 12/3/6/9 on a clock face... bring two legs down from that cross and you have two hands that go on by a time other than seasonal as long as any intelligence that can adapt grow and perceive it exists... this is the eternity as seen in the heavens with a savior on a cross representing man and subtracting two legs death and rediscovery the resurection... and it only takes basic math nightly observation and one year to observe to start building a concept of time beyond night and day to rediscover after a major catastrophy keeping the cycle repeating without interference. add society to it and we get job's dilemma based on time with a constant temptation to lay it all down or keep planting seeds hoping for a harvest different than seasonal through ones works and efforts... outside of that time shown in space.



posted on Feb, 29 2016 @ 09:38 AM
link   
a reply to: Utnapisjtim

So basically what you're doing is finding numbers then using other, non related numbers, to get something "close" to what you want?

That's not proof of anything other than you can pick and choose numbers and ignore others.



posted on Feb, 29 2016 @ 11:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim
5777 is 2016 in the Hebrew calendar (it hasn't really started yet, it starts at Rosh Hashannah in October.


LMAO, because the Hebrew calendar is the Be-all End-all definition of time here on Earth?


originally posted by: Utnapisjtim
My point is, Genesis says the Earth is about 4.5 billion years, NOT 6000 years.


Citation please.

I may have missed the post where you explained this to someone else, but why exactly does it matter what Genesis says? You're not religious, so why are you bringing up genesis? I thought you were making a point on a general intelligent, not a specific one from a specific religion.



originally posted by: Utnapisjtim
So what is the exact age of Earth, geological speaking.


No one knows! that's the point we're trying to make!

No one knows, to the very moment, how old the Earth is.

Science doesn't function on absolute claims. All it states is "the answer is likely [this], because the evidence suggests it" (subject to change upon further discovery of new evidence)

You've been doing this the entire topic. Picking and choosing things that suit your preconceived conclusions, and totally ignoring everything else.

Another thing, which we continuously bring up, and you've never once responded to. None of these numbers are static numbers. The days that Earth has in one year isn't constant, it changes slowly over time because Earth's rotation is constantly slowing, thanks to our moon.

So your calendar year numbers are totally irrelevant because the number of days on Earth isn't static.

The only way your numbers make any sense at all is if we are viewing them at this very moment, using the current length of a year on Earth, and picking and choosing things that sort of support your concept, even though in reality those numbers have no significance.



posted on Mar, 1 2016 @ 08:42 AM
link   
it works for the system he/she used, so please do not beat him/her down... it works for the system posed... does it work for all? better to use words of encouragement than set a stumbling block to trip on and fall asleep under like happened to eziekiel. OP? keep going... apply it to each system and see what happens. if there is no bias? then no corellation of expectation... so detach from the data, and negativity of observers and become an observer. some call such beings watchers.



posted on Mar, 1 2016 @ 08:47 PM
link   


People simply can't ignore these things.

And yet some do.

I also like that the Moon covers the sun just right during an eclipse. Beautiful coincidences.

Oh and the fact that other planets don't have the right soup to make fishmonkeys.

Of course some planets may be inhabited by the quiet type, as in the folk who would build rockets and conquer the stars without asking for a permit or sharing the tech with those who use trains and gunpowder to enslave others.


It's a pleasure to read your posts.



posted on Mar, 1 2016 @ 08:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: wisvol
I also like that the Moon covers the sun just right during an eclipse. Beautiful coincidences.


Actually, it's not 'just right'. I'm not sure if you were implying that literally or figuratively.

The craters on the moon don't allow for a perfectly circular eclipse.
edit on 1/3/16 by Ghost147 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 1 2016 @ 09:03 PM
link   
a reply to: wisvol

The moon doesn't "perfectly cover" anything. It may look that way as the distances are so great, but it doesn't. And even the look changes when you move around this globe. Move further in any direction and it wouldn't be as near as "perfect". It all depends where you observe it from.



posted on Mar, 1 2016 @ 09:20 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79

Wait, so the moon and sun aren't the same size AND they're far away?

It's neat how in specific places and times the moon the eye and the sun are aligned in a way that despite their respective differences in both size and distance from the eye, they do in fact correspond quite exactly in perceived size, a coincidence noted by astronomers for a while now. What are the odds?

Not something that you see as interesting? Congratulations, do your own thing instead.

As above, so below is applied therefore to that which orbits our planet and that which our planet orbits.

Of course, it's just a coincidence, and we can still all be selfish gened monkeys, don't panic.



posted on Mar, 1 2016 @ 09:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: wisvol
a reply to: TerryDon79

Wait, so the moon and sun aren't the same size AND they're far away?

It's neat how in specific places and times the moon the eye and the sun are aligned in a way that despite their respective differences in both size and distance from the eye, they do in fact correspond quite exactly in perceived size, a coincidence noted by astronomers for a while now. What are the odds?

Not something that you see as interesting? Congratulations, do your own thing instead.

As above, so below is applied therefore to that which orbits our planet and that which our planet orbits.

Of course, it's just a coincidence, and we can still all be selfish gened monkeys, don't panic.


It is actually quite "neat". Same way as being on Saturn and looking towards the Sun you would also get other planets (eventually) eclipsing it in exactly the same way. Or how your thumb can block out the Sun in the same way the moon can.



posted on Mar, 1 2016 @ 09:43 PM
link   


Same way as being on Saturn and looking towards the Sun you would also get other planets (eventually) eclipsing it in exactly the same way. Or how your thumb can block out the Sun in the same way the moon can.


In fact, either experience or math can show you that this does not happen on Saturn, where eclipses are more like black dots on the sun. A thumb eclipse is less impressive in that you control the distance between your eye and thumb.



posted on Mar, 1 2016 @ 09:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: wisvol
a reply to: TerryDon79

Wait, so the moon and sun aren't the same size AND they're far away?


Are all your responses just sarcastic garbage?


originally posted by: wisvol
a reply to: TerryDon79What are the odds?


More like, 'what is the significance'? The OP seems to imply that these numbers and 'oddities' are significant in some way.

If you feel the same way, would you mind explaining why you feel they are significant?



posted on Mar, 1 2016 @ 11:23 PM
link   
a reply to: wisvol



they do in fact correspond quite exactly in perceived size,

Actually, not all that exactly.

The distance of the Moon from Earth varies, depending on the time of the month, from 364,397 km to 406,731 km, with an average of 384,748 km. It's known as eccentricity. It sort of removes the idea of any exactitude.

The distance of the Earth from the Sun also varies, depending on the time of year, from 152,097,701 km to 147,098,074km, with an average of 149,597,887.5 km.

So the ratio of the two orbits varies from 417 to 361, with an average of 388. The ratio of the sizes of the Sun and the Moon is about 400 so yes, sometimes the ratio is the same as the ratio in sizes but the majority of the time, it is not. An exact eclipse is a very, very rare event. I would be hard pressed to say that any modern (in the anthropological sense) human has ever seen one.


Of course, when you consider that the Moon has been moving away from the Earth (still is) since it formed...

edit on 3/1/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 1 2016 @ 11:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

I knew you'd show up, don't ask me how.




So the ratio of the two orbits varies from 417 to 361, with an average of 388. The ratio of the sizes of the Sun and the Moon is about 400 so yes, sometimes the ratio is the same as the ratio in sizes but the majority of the time, it is not. An exact eclipse is a very, very rare event. I would be hard pressed to say that any modern (in the anthropological sense) human has ever seen one.


Exact eclipses were observed by many people still alive now. It's no big deal, unless one suspects patterns of interference, as does the refreshingly smart author of this thread, whom I wish to thank and praise again for sharing information many still deny in various ways. I have yet to see an imperfect eclipse.

You wouldn't believe how your thinking changes when you polish yourself a homemade telescope and start keeping a journal of how stuff moves around the sky at night.

But you wouldn't do that, Phage. You don't have the time, because you have to throw numbers at principles.
And besides, someone already told you how it all works, so why bother to find out?

Aah, Phage.. I've known you since you were an abstract on that asocial graduate's list. Enjoy the show.



posted on Mar, 2 2016 @ 12:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: wisvol
a reply to: Phage
I wish to thank and praise again for sharing information many still deny in various ways.


I don't think anyone denies that the information in the OP exists. It's the conclusion that it means anything at all that people are denying.


originally posted by: wisvol
a reply to: Phage
I have yet to see an imperfect eclipse.


What is a 'perfect eclipse'? and why does your subjective observation of it matter?


originally posted by: wisvol
a reply to: Phage
You wouldn't believe how your thinking changes when you polish yourself a homemade telescope and start keeping a journal of how stuff moves around the sky at night.


Ah, a record you say? We would love to see it



originally posted by: wisvol
a reply to: Phage
But you wouldn't do that, Phage. You don't have the time


Detraction from the argument. Failed tactic.


originally posted by: wisvol
a reply to: Phage
because you have to throw numbers at principles.


How about instead of just ignoring the numbers, you actually prove that they don't support his claims?

Those numbers show how a 'perfect eclipse' A) isn't possible and B) can only come close to occurring at specific times, thus subjectively, which means there is no reason to claim it was in some way intentionally designed that way



originally posted by: wisvol
a reply to: Phage
And besides, someone already told you how it all works, so why bother to find out?


Who was that?


originally posted by: wisvol
a reply to: Phage
Aah, Phage.. I've known you since you were an abstract on that asocial graduate's list. Enjoy the show.


More detraction...

Well your whole post was just a massive failure, wasn't it? How about you actually provide some content to the thread?




top topics



 
24
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join