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: 9
24
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 2 2016 @ 12:10 AM
link   
If he created the gravity that dropped the ball, than in essence he is partly responsible.




posted on Mar, 2 2016 @ 12:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheCretinHop
If he created the gravity that dropped the ball, than in essence he is partly responsible.


Except that if all 'he' did was create the mechanism, then the natural events that occurred any time after it were just that, natural. The argument that the OP is making is that there are specific planets that have orbits which suggest an intelligent involvement. If all that was needed was to start the expansion of the universe and the mechanisms within it and then simply 'let it be', then there is no longer a need for this 'he' you speak of, nor a point in which it was necessary to change specific orbits.



posted on Mar, 2 2016 @ 12:25 AM
link   
a reply to: wisvol




Exact eclipses were observed by many people still alive now.

Please provide the dates and locations.





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.
Quite a bit of presumption in that statement.
edit on 3/2/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 2 2016 @ 12:31 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Summer 5768, Provence comes to mind. I don't wear watches. This stuff is mostly uncensored with videos, pictures, and notes of volunteers available freely through your web browser.




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.

Quite a bit of presumption in that statement.


Yes, I presume it has to do with going through that process when my own curiosity tickled.



posted on Mar, 2 2016 @ 12:32 AM
link   
a reply to: wisvol



Summer 5768


What?



posted on Mar, 2 2016 @ 12:34 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Your calendar also has record of this.



posted on Mar, 2 2016 @ 12:36 AM
link   
a reply to: wisvol


The summer of 5768?
I can't remember that far ahead.



posted on Mar, 2 2016 @ 12:43 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Remembering the future is how the present is made.

Eclipses will occur according to numbers you volunteered here, every year and a half approximately.
This matches astronomy records of ancient times.

Nothing quite like observing the phenomenon to get your own impression. Just to check if your math is accurate you could, based on the last eclipse, determine where to be for the next. If I see you there I vow to donate to you an interesting manuscript discussing the OP. I'll be wearing a hat that says "wisvol".



posted on Mar, 2 2016 @ 12:47 AM
link   
a reply to: Lazarus Short


What I really like about this thread, and astronomical discussions in general, is that our opinions change nothing and mean even less. The universe's design would be the same even if mankind never appeared in it. But I always get a kick out of big ATS egos debating things that are way above our ability to understand! :-)



posted on Mar, 2 2016 @ 12:49 AM
link   
a reply to: wisvol



Nothing quite like observing the phenomenon to get your own impression.


I've seen an eclipse. 1991. It was really, really cool. Awesome would be a fitting word. I was on a boat at the time. We had to zoom around a bit to reach the hole in the clouds.

It was not an exact eclipse, the apparent diameter of the Moon was greater than that of the Sun. But it was awesome.


edit on 3/2/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 2 2016 @ 01:07 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage




the apparent diameter of the Moon was greater than that of the Sun


Assuming your story is factual, there would be no need to dig any further.



posted on Mar, 2 2016 @ 01:08 AM
link   
a reply to: wisvol

Assuming your story is factual

Unlike your claim, mine is easily confirmed. Total Solar eclipses don't happen all that often.


edit on 3/2/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 2 2016 @ 01:20 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage




Unlike your claim, mine is easily confirmed.


How difficult is it to look at the moon? Or as in "uneasy" maybe?

I welcome your disagreement and encourage those interested in the noble field of astronomy to practice astronomy with the time they would devote to reading about astronomy.
Then surely if one of us is right in what we said today the observer will know.



posted on Mar, 2 2016 @ 01:22 AM
link   
a reply to: wisvol



I welcome your disagreement and encourage those interested in the noble field of astronomy to practice astronomy with the time they would devote to reading about astronomy.

Those who actually practice astronomy understand that an "exact" eclipse is a very, very, very rare event.

Those who actually practice astronomy don't fudge numbers. Because they know that if you do, you end up looking in the wrong place.


edit on 3/2/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 2 2016 @ 01:31 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage




Those who actually practice astronomy don't fudge numbers. Because they know that if you do, you end up looking in the wrong place.


Wisely written, and the reason why I teased you about numbing earlier.
I like to use letters for math because names mean more than strings of digits to me.
Also it's fun to guess the answer correctly based on linguistics, while the others have to numb it out.
Sadly I can't seem to do it with this here Latin alphabet derivation.



posted on Mar, 2 2016 @ 05:29 AM
link   
a reply to: wisvol

To inform all people here yet again:

Though I shortened and rounded a few numbers in the OP text, I used the most accurate numbers I could find for the calculations. Mostly the same numbers as given in the NASA stats for the given planets. Period.

The stars show the geometrical figures that shows up when you plot the alignments over a long time. They appear as the stars in the illustrations, though nature is not entirely exact, guess that's what makes this so perfect— the stars in the illustrations show the ideals. Period.



posted on Mar, 2 2016 @ 08:30 AM
link   
a reply to: Utnapisjtim

So because the numbers aren't perfect, that means it's perfect?

What the serious he'll have you been smoking?!



posted on Mar, 2 2016 @ 10:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim
a reply to: wisvol

To inform all people here yet again:

Though I shortened and rounded a few numbers in the OP text, I used the most accurate numbers I could find for the calculations. Mostly the same numbers as given in the NASA stats for the given planets. Period.


To ask you, for probably the 10th time this topic, Why are any numbers significant? Why is the number 1000 significant? what is the significance of 4 planets in our solar system that appear to be able to be primes from a single perspective? Why are non-perfect numbers significant? Why is this apparent 'pattern', of which only occurs at this very moment in time, from our perspective alone, using numbers that constantly change, significant?


originally posted by: Utnapisjtim
a reply to: wisvol
The stars show the geometrical figures that shows up when you plot the alignments over a long time. They appear as the stars in the illustrations, though nature is not entirely exact, guess that's what makes this so perfect— the stars in the illustrations show the ideals. Period.


That makes no sense at all. Nature is not exact, these numbers are not exact, and then you conclude it isn't natural?

I wish I had that argument in school:

"GHOST147!!! why did you get 0% on your final exam"
"Oh, you mistake my 0% and your perception of wrong answers with that which they actually represent. You see, I the answers aren't perfect, therefore they are correct"
edit on 2/3/16 by Ghost147 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 2 2016 @ 02:11 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79

All these planets interfere with each others, that they have stabilised themselves the way they have is a bloody miracle though science explains it quite elegantly, but seeing how all these planets express these ratios and geometric shapes, primes and well awesomeness, is pretty awesome.

==> Why would the synodic alignment of our nearest neighbours in space express the first four regular primes (well actually 5 since Sol would be 1) in perfect order?
edit on 2-3-2016 by Utnapisjtim because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 2 2016 @ 02:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim
a reply to: TerryDon79

All these planets interfere with each others, that they have stabilised themselves the way they have is a bloody miracle though science explains it quite elegantly, but seeing how all these planets express these ratios and geometric shapes, primes and well awesomeness, is pretty awesome.

==> Why would the synodic alignment of our nearest neighbours in space express the first four regular primes (well actually since Sol would be 1) in perfect order?


What about all the other planets and planets within other galaxies and the galaxies within the universe?

I'm sure if this is really a thing to prove intelligent design then the same equation would work with everything and not just 4 planets out of millions.



new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join