Results 1 to 23 of 23

Thread: The equation of creation

  1. #1
    Prophet Contributor jeffweeder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    ADELAIDE
    Age
    51
    Posts
    2,233

    The equation of creation

    Disable These Ads!
    Ive got no idea what to make of this, but it looks interesting.

    ‘I am a scientist and as such I didn’t at first really believe it myself. But physics is physics and maths is maths, and you can’t argue with it.’
    Therefore, either there is the most freakishly unlikely coincidence happening, and the huge amount of supporting data not mentioned in this short review makes the odds of this event being due to a chance event really disappear beyond the possible, or with the application of the razor of Occam, we are left with the simple conclusion that the Earth, Sun, and Moon must have been Created to accord with the Equation of Creation.
    http://www.ukapologetics.net/09/cumming2.html
    And those castles made of sand,
    fall into the sea.....................
    eventually.

  2. #2
    Cart-mod 2.0 Global Moderator Cartesiantheater's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Minkowski space Posts:       49,989
    Posts
    13,345
    EDIT- I decided to put this at the top, since it is of vital importance:

    This dude takes one side of an equation with one unit and EQUATES it to another side of the equation with DIFFERENT UNITS. This is GARBAGE science.

    It is like saying that 2 + 2 = 5! UNITS MUST ALWAYS MATCH. In his God equation, UNITS DO NOT MATCH. That means the two sides ARE NOT EQUAL, in the same sense that 2 + 2 ≠ 5.



    EDIT 2- Essentially what this guy did is take some aspects of reality that IN REAL LIFE HAVE NO ACTUAL CORRELATION WITH THE SPEED OF LIGHT, either numerically or in any other way, and then MULTIPLIED THEM by an ARBITRARY CONSTANT which he claims is the same as some pseudoscientific metrology, which when multiplied together gets a bad approximation of the NUMBER that we see on the speed of light.


    Unfortunately, the left side of his equation is in units Hz meters, and the right side is in meters/second.

    Opps. That is a major fuck up.






    Get this crap out of the science section.


    First of all, the reasoning is utter crap.

    This website puts it as good as I could:

    Quote Originally Posted by link
    To say that finding a certain regularity means that the objects involved “must have been” engineered to fit the mathematics derived from it is to reason upside-down. Anyone can triangulate a given set of data from regularly behaving objects in the universe, then derive an equation to fit the data (and some equation will fit because the motion is uniform), find some conversion factor to make some of the numbers look smooth (this is the nature of math), and then claim the objects were specifically engineered to fit that equation. The conclusion should come as no surprise, for it was custom-molded to fit the data.

    Many scientists believe in God. Their belief in God is not science.

    A mathematical equation that one claims is representative of God is not science. At best it is metaphysics.



    As far as "physics is physics and math is math," first of all, a simple equation IS NOT PHYSICS.

    Second, mathematics is always true within the scope of the universe in question.



    I'll put it like this:


    The math that accurately describes special relativity, the Lorentz group, is a subset out of MANY possible mathematical representations of the same group (the Poincaré group: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poincar%C3%A9_group). Only ONE is representative of special relativity.


    Further, Einstein in his quest to unify all of physics came up with HUNDREDS of mathematical equations that were entirely internally consistent and COULD HAVE described any number of universes. None of them worked because all of them were nothing but mathematics.




    This equation is nothing but a linear mathematical equation true within its mathematical scope.

    It is NOT any proof whatsoever of ANYTHING except that within its own mathematical scope it is true.


    THIS:

    Quote Originally Posted by your link
    The equation describes a relationship between the hydrogen fine transition line, the ratio between the circumference and diameter of a circle, and the speed of light in a vacuum.
    Is simply NOT ANYWHERE NEAR enough to even claim that it is some special representative of THIS universe, let alone any other, let alone proof for a creator.



    Furthermore, even IF this equation really does relate some interesting aspects about the in vacuo speed of light and some other things like the hydrogen fine transition line, SO DO SCORES OF OTHER EQUATIONS!


    Why is it that none of the other mathematical equations that unite aspects of reality qualify as the "God " equation?





    Here, I'll give you a mathematical equation that also predicts the speed of light in vacuo (except it predicts it far more accurately and WITH THE CORRECT UNITS):


    ▼²(E) = με ∂²E/∂t²

    This equation is derived from facts about electricity and magnetism, and as a result of it, the speed of light is found in the term με, and not only that, the fact that light is an electromagnetic wave is found in this equation, and not only that, the fact that a moving magnetic field produces current, and a moving current produces a magnetic field is found in this equation.

    And not only that, the fact that the speed of light is constant for all observers is found in this equation (because the wave motion is with respect to no medium), and not only that, the fact that time is NOT absolute is found in this equation, and not only that the fact that simultaneity is not absolute, that space can contract, etc is found in this equation, etc.




    Basically, your website is essentially equivalent to this:



    I found a very remarkable relationship between two physical things, and the mathematical relationship is aesthetically pleasing, therefore God exists!



    For one, the conclusion does not necessarily follow, but even if it IS true that God exists, it is ALSO true that your little equation is no different than any other in the history of mankind.



    So, the biggest flaw in this is that somehow this equation is special and does something that no other piece of math in history does.

    Many people see God in mathematics (Perfectionist, for example). But this equation would be NO DIFFERENT to any of them, and it sure wouldn't be any different to people who DON'T see God in mathematics.
















    EDIT- Why this equation is nothing special.


    The equation claims it is special because it multiplies the hydrogen line frequency by Pi, then divides by the ratio of the weight of the moon to the Earth, and that equates to (allegedly) the speed of light in vacuo.



    (1420.40575177 MHz) π/(.347 7 × 10^22 KG/.9742 × 10^24 KG) =



    (1420.40575177 MHz) π/(0.0123196411) =

    = 362213 MHz

    Yeah, that is WAAAAAAAAAY off.... it isn't even the right units. Fucking ridiculous.


    That can't even BE a velocity measurement, since it is a measurement of FREQUENCY.

    But the website claims that this number, the one they got: 361,449, is somehow the magnitude of the speed of light in an archaic unit.


    First of all, his magical conversion unit is a UNIT OF LENGTH. It is neither frequency nor speed. Not to mention, the unit he uses is considered pseudoscience (see bottom).







    Additionally, there is all kinds of rounding error in this equation.


    http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/The_Equ...n_the_equation


    Why the hell would God give us an equation that is inaccurate by an amount human beings would laugh at if given as an accurate measurement?











    Finally, to add one more thing I just found:

    http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2...d_equation.php


    Quote Originally Posted by link
    So I plugged in all those numbers anyway, and did the calculation works out to a value for C of 361,448.9 MHz. This is a bit off.


    Oh, but there's more! There's a footnote to the email I was sent that mentions that you have to calculate the speed of light in megalithic yards, derived by some esoteric calculation from the dimensions of Stonehenge. A megalithic yard = 0.82966 meters, which then gets you to the right number for the speed of light.

    Not bad for a formula with three terms, one of which is pulled out of someone's ass, and the whole thing requiring a magic fudge factor to bring it into line with neolithic technology.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megalithic_yard

    The key to his conversion isn't even legitimate, IN ADDITION to the fact that his "equation" isn't even an equation (or even a PROPORTIONALITY) because the units don't match.
    Last edited by Cartesiantheater; Feb 6th, 2010 at 6:40 PM.
    "I was put on trial twice near Y2K for acting like Jesus and claiming to be the Messiah. Its not everyday that a man parks a Chariot of Fire in front of a tomb and stands against the US government with a bow and razor tipped arrows over his shoulder. I wore a suit of armor and was protected by an invisible bubble and my sharp tongue was more than the judicial system could handle."Jake
    "The toilet is more than a throne. It is a sacred chamber."-Anton LaVey, High Priest of Satanism

  3. #3
    Cart-mod 2.0 Global Moderator Cartesiantheater's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Minkowski space Posts:       49,989
    Posts
    13,345
    Also Jeff, what kind of fools do you take us for?

    There is a link at the bottom of your page to an APOLOGETICS WEBSITE- CLEARLY RELIGIOUS!


    There is a section for this. It's the "Is There a God" sub-forum.


    The science section is for real science, not pathetic pseudoscience that can't even match units on two sides of an equation.
    "I was put on trial twice near Y2K for acting like Jesus and claiming to be the Messiah. Its not everyday that a man parks a Chariot of Fire in front of a tomb and stands against the US government with a bow and razor tipped arrows over his shoulder. I wore a suit of armor and was protected by an invisible bubble and my sharp tongue was more than the judicial system could handle."Jake
    "The toilet is more than a throne. It is a sacred chamber."-Anton LaVey, High Priest of Satanism

  4. #4
    Prophet Contributor jeffweeder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    ADELAIDE
    Age
    51
    Posts
    2,233
    Ok CT.......I did say that i didnt understand these equations, Ive got no idea what they or you are talking about.

    I wasnt taking you for a fool by posting from an Christian website....The article stated that those who wrote it were not Christians...right.

    Knight and Butler realised that the whole solar system seemed to be a message from the Creator. For Knight in particular this was a shock, as he was at the time an atheist, and is still a member of the Humanist Society. Knight comments, ‘I was an atheist. On balance, I now believe in a Creator, a design, and an ultimate purpose. This has to be God. I’m a pragmatic humanist who now says, ‘There is no longer space in the room for atheism.’ Alan Butler added, ‘I’m inclined to say this is God, the Creator.’

    So I thought i would throw it out there to see what you and others would say about it...if there was any truth to whatever it was they were saying.

    Sheesh God and science, how misunderstood they are.

    I know you dont like me mentioning GOD in the science section, so ill respect that and never mention GOD again ok?


    GOD bless
    Last edited by jeffweeder; Feb 6th, 2010 at 8:04 PM.
    And those castles made of sand,
    fall into the sea.....................
    eventually.

  5. #5
    Survivalist! Godsgifttomankind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Abha Kingdom
    Posts
    1,287
    Hello jeff and thank-you for your presentation,
    Quote Originally Posted by jeffweeder View Post
    Ive got no idea what to make of this, but it looks interesting.


    http://www.ukapologetics.net/09/cumming2.html
    The first clue that something was wrong should have been the fact that it was presented as an article written by David Cumming and then references the same person in the third person. The article is a clear fabrication designed for those that want science to miraculously agree with their own understandings of God. CT does a better job of showing the connection, while disproving that which is irrational.

    Keep up the good work.
    His Faithful Servant

    David.

  6. #6
    Cart-mod 2.0 Global Moderator Cartesiantheater's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Minkowski space Posts:       49,989
    Posts
    13,345
    Jeff, it's not that you mentioned God. Einstein often mentioned God in the abstract ("Subtle is the Lord, but Malicious he is not" or "God does not play dice").

    It's that you posted pseudoscience in the science section.








    If you learn anything from this, learn that in ANY equation, whatever the units on the left are must be the same units on the right, whether they be meters, meters/second, hertz, ohms, etc.

    But this entire equation is not even of any use to even theists, because the essence of the argument is that BECAUSE there is remarkable order in the universe, therefore God exists. The point is you don't even need this "God equation" to make the argument, because the universe is full of order anyway.









    GGTMK, thank you for pointing out that the article references itself. I did not see that.
    Last edited by Cartesiantheater; Feb 7th, 2010 at 12:05 AM.
    "I was put on trial twice near Y2K for acting like Jesus and claiming to be the Messiah. Its not everyday that a man parks a Chariot of Fire in front of a tomb and stands against the US government with a bow and razor tipped arrows over his shoulder. I wore a suit of armor and was protected by an invisible bubble and my sharp tongue was more than the judicial system could handle."Jake
    "The toilet is more than a throne. It is a sacred chamber."-Anton LaVey, High Priest of Satanism

  7. #7
    Prepared survivor Seasoned Member equestrian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    In the land of hurricanes and alligators
    Posts
    479
    The ancient Egyptians knew (the speed of light) and that it was (both particle and wave form). Any Egyptologist worth his salt would have known this as it is clearly written in original (verifiable) hieroglyphic text. The source is 4500 years old - imagine how many generations of Egyptologists have kept it secret

    Oh well the world is full of wonders (but for sure if there is a God equation than this Egyptian speed of light source verifies it)

    Am I gonna tell you where it is written - No!

    eq
    /
    The avatar? Oh that's Ben our Arab gelding!

  8. #8
    Cart-mod 2.0 Global Moderator Cartesiantheater's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Minkowski space Posts:       49,989
    Posts
    13,345
    Quote Originally Posted by equestrian View Post
    The ancient Egyptians knew (the speed of light) and that it was (both particle and wave form). Any Egyptologist worth his salt would have known this as it is clearly written in original (verifiable) hieroglyphic text.
    /
    If it is "clearly written in original (verifiable) hieroglyphic text" then please enlighten us.


    * are you alluding to the theory that Egyptian culture, or its predecessor, was far more advanced than historians imagine?
    "I was put on trial twice near Y2K for acting like Jesus and claiming to be the Messiah. Its not everyday that a man parks a Chariot of Fire in front of a tomb and stands against the US government with a bow and razor tipped arrows over his shoulder. I wore a suit of armor and was protected by an invisible bubble and my sharp tongue was more than the judicial system could handle."Jake
    "The toilet is more than a throne. It is a sacred chamber."-Anton LaVey, High Priest of Satanism

  9. #9
    Prepared survivor Seasoned Member equestrian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    In the land of hurricanes and alligators
    Posts
    479
    1.) Cartesiantheater (re., the speed of light)
    If it is "clearly written in original (verifiable) hieroglyphic text" then please enlighten us.
    eq) Not a chance

    2.) Cartesiantheater
    The science section is for real science, not pathetic pseudoscience that can't even match units on two sides of an equation.
    eq) Valid ancient literature contains many examples of equations (or concepts) where the units do not match. Yet they are accurate and convey the message. The reason such equations exist and are valid is because they wrote in metaphor. Metaphor being an imaginative comparison.

    I looked at the god equation derivation - and have no comment - but this much is so - it is typical of ancient work - so I have to disagree with Cartesiantheater - as his comments don't take into account the ancient use of Metaphor

    Again -- Metaphor being an imaginative comparison.

    eq
    The avatar? Oh that's Ben our Arab gelding!

  10. #10
    Cart-mod 2.0 Global Moderator Cartesiantheater's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Minkowski space Posts:       49,989
    Posts
    13,345
    Quote Originally Posted by equestrian View Post
    1.) Cartesiantheater (re., the speed of light)

    eq) Not a chance
    Why not? Are you working on research or something?


    Quote Originally Posted by equestrian View Post

    2.) Cartesiantheater

    eq) Valid ancient literature contains many examples of equations (or concepts) where the units do not match. Yet they are accurate and convey the message. The reason such equations exist and are valid is because they wrote in metaphor. Metaphor being an imaginative comparison.
    Imaginative comparison isn't science though. Science requires quantification.

    As Lord Kelvin put it:

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Kelvin
    In physical science the first essential step in the direction of learning any subject is to find principles of numerical reckoning and practicable methods for measuring some quality connected with it. I often say that when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind; it may be the beginning of knowledge, but you have scarcely in your thoughts advanced to the state of Science, whatever the matter may be.

    Quote Originally Posted by equestrian View Post

    I looked at the god equation derivation - and have no comment - but this much is so - it is typical of ancient work - so I have to disagree with Cartesiantheater - as his comments don't take into account the ancient use of Metaphor

    Again -- Metaphor being an imaginative comparison.

    eq
    While I respect your disagreement, science has a particular definition to it. And this "God-equation" is nothing OLD. It is a recent concoction.

    This "God-equation" is not science. It is pseudoscience, based upon pseudoscientific metrology and other arbitrary things.

    If the units do not match you do not have an equation.


    As it stands, metaphor is great for thinking, but it isn't science. At best it's philosophy. But then, science as we know it is relatively new (unless some ancient culture stumbled upon the method before but all their scientific records are lost).
    "I was put on trial twice near Y2K for acting like Jesus and claiming to be the Messiah. Its not everyday that a man parks a Chariot of Fire in front of a tomb and stands against the US government with a bow and razor tipped arrows over his shoulder. I wore a suit of armor and was protected by an invisible bubble and my sharp tongue was more than the judicial system could handle."Jake
    "The toilet is more than a throne. It is a sacred chamber."-Anton LaVey, High Priest of Satanism

  11. #11
    Prepared survivor Seasoned Member equestrian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    In the land of hurricanes and alligators
    Posts
    479
    Cartesiantheater
    Imaginative comparison isn't science though. Science requires quantification.
    eq) Not so. Newton's first and second laws were not written in quantifiable form - neither was Archimedes Principle (tho you can write equations around their respective concepts)

    Cartesiantheater
    This "God-equation" is not science. It is pseudoscience, based upon pseudoscientific metrology and other arbitrary things.

    If the units do not match you do not have an equation.
    eq) Cartesiantheater you cannot apply modern factor label to ancient literature - or equations -

    Also - I said that I had no comment re., the "God-equation" - except that the structure was typical ancient metaphoric methodology - therefore valid without factor label
    eq
    /
    The avatar? Oh that's Ben our Arab gelding!

  12. #12
    FlatLiner Contributor DontBeAfraid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Your mothers vagina
    Posts
    11,414
    Someone is clearly losing their mind as they age.... sad.
    I aggressively attack stupidity... If you feel I am being aggressive, well....

  13. #13
    Cart-mod 2.0 Global Moderator Cartesiantheater's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Minkowski space Posts:       49,989
    Posts
    13,345
    What's in between the green lines is beside the point.

    Quote Originally Posted by equestrian View Post
    Cartesiantheater

    eq) Not so. Newton's first and second laws were not written in quantifiable form -
    That due to the conventions of the time, and also his desire to write at the level of his audience. He did not have any equations (even equations or any proportionality written in words) in which the dimensions did not match.

    For example:

    Quote Originally Posted by Newton
    The alteration of motion is ever proportional to the motive force impressed; and is made in the direction of the right line in which that force is impressed.
    This means:

    alteration of motion ∝ motive force impressed. *(although with direction considered)

    A proportionality indicates similar dimensions.



    But more to the point is that later in the work he gets quite detailed with numbers and quantification (the conventions are different, but it is still quantified):

    http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Ma...m_of_the_World


    and here he gets pretty detailed geometrically

    http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Ma...(1846)/BookI-I


    Quote Originally Posted by equestrian View Post

    neither was Archimedes Principle (tho you can write equations around their respective concepts)
    Modern science did not exist in Archimedes time.



    Green line end

    Quote Originally Posted by equestrian View Post
    Cartesiantheater

    eq) Cartesiantheater you cannot apply modern factor label to ancient literature - or equations -

    Also - I said that I had no comment re., the "God-equation" - except that the structure was typical ancient metaphoric methodology - therefore valid without factor label
    eq
    /
    The "God-equation" is not ancient, therefore I see no problem in pointing out the epic failure that the "equation" isn't an equation because the dimensions do not match. That was what I was commenting on, so I don't understand why your objection applies (since we aren't actually talking about an ancient formalization).





    But the real question is: do you have any ancient equations to show us?


    Otherwise you are cruel.
    "I was put on trial twice near Y2K for acting like Jesus and claiming to be the Messiah. Its not everyday that a man parks a Chariot of Fire in front of a tomb and stands against the US government with a bow and razor tipped arrows over his shoulder. I wore a suit of armor and was protected by an invisible bubble and my sharp tongue was more than the judicial system could handle."Jake
    "The toilet is more than a throne. It is a sacred chamber."-Anton LaVey, High Priest of Satanism

  14. #14
    Prepared survivor Seasoned Member equestrian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    In the land of hurricanes and alligators
    Posts
    479
    Cartesiantheater
    But the real question is: do you have any ancient equations to show us? Otherwise you are cruel.
    eq) Sorry about that - but the truth is you wouldn't understand it - and it is written so beautifully that I will not open it up to the opportunity for negative comment.

    Cartesiantheater
    Modern science did not exist in Archimedes time.
    eq) I'm sure "Modern science did not exist in Archimedes time." But ancient science existed and in many arenas it surpassed ours

    Particularly in the Celestial sciences - they had a very complex system of longitude - again expressed in metaphor

    Cartesiantheater
    I see no problem in pointing out the epic failure that the "equation" isn't an equation because the dimensions do not match.
    eq) Then you wouldn't understand the moon God equation

    eq
    /
    The avatar? Oh that's Ben our Arab gelding!

  15. #15
    Cart-mod 2.0 Global Moderator Cartesiantheater's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Minkowski space Posts:       49,989
    Posts
    13,345
    Quote Originally Posted by equestrian View Post
    Cartesiantheater

    eq) Sorry about that - but the truth is you wouldn't understand it - and it is written so beautifully that I will not open it up to the opportunity for negative comment.

    [...]

    eq) Then you wouldn't understand the moon God equation

    eq
    /
    If we're talking about how ancient people viewed the world I can certainly make accommodations.

    But if you claim these equations have the same predictive and explanatory power as today's modern scientific ones I'd challenge you on that.

    That is, as long as we keep the focus on how THEY saw the world, and don't try to IMPOSE their thoughts onto the modern understanding of the world, I am more than capable of doing the "converse": not imposing modern understanding onto how THEY saw the world.

    It's all a matter of context. If you don't want to mix them, I can play along, as long as you honor your end as well.
    "I was put on trial twice near Y2K for acting like Jesus and claiming to be the Messiah. Its not everyday that a man parks a Chariot of Fire in front of a tomb and stands against the US government with a bow and razor tipped arrows over his shoulder. I wore a suit of armor and was protected by an invisible bubble and my sharp tongue was more than the judicial system could handle."Jake
    "The toilet is more than a throne. It is a sacred chamber."-Anton LaVey, High Priest of Satanism

  16. #16
    Prepared survivor Seasoned Member equestrian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    In the land of hurricanes and alligators
    Posts
    479
    The earth plus the moon is a God equation
    Using nearest even whole numbers

    Atomic Weight of hydrogen = 10080

    Diameter of the moon = 2160

    Diameter of the earth (3960 average radius) = 7920

    2160 plus 7920 = 10080

    The earth plus the moon = hydrogen ---- is a God equation

    eq
    /
    The avatar? Oh that's Ben our Arab gelding!

  17. #17
    Cart-mod 2.0 Global Moderator Cartesiantheater's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Minkowski space Posts:       49,989
    Posts
    13,345
    Quote Originally Posted by equestrian View Post
    Using nearest even whole numbers

    eq
    /
    Which whole numbers? You mean like a half moon, or a full moon?

    "I was put on trial twice near Y2K for acting like Jesus and claiming to be the Messiah. Its not everyday that a man parks a Chariot of Fire in front of a tomb and stands against the US government with a bow and razor tipped arrows over his shoulder. I wore a suit of armor and was protected by an invisible bubble and my sharp tongue was more than the judicial system could handle."Jake
    "The toilet is more than a throne. It is a sacred chamber."-Anton LaVey, High Priest of Satanism

  18. #18
    Prepared survivor Seasoned Member equestrian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    In the land of hurricanes and alligators
    Posts
    479
    From previous post
    The earth plus the moon is a God equation
    Using nearest even whole numbers

    Atomic Weight of hydrogen = 10080

    Diameter of the moon = 2160

    Diameter of the earth (3960 average radius) = 7920

    2160 plus 7920 = 10080

    The earth plus the moon = hydrogen ---- is a God equation

    eq
    /
    The avatar? Oh that's Ben our Arab gelding!

  19. #19
    Cart-mod 2.0 Global Moderator Cartesiantheater's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Minkowski space Posts:       49,989
    Posts
    13,345
    Quote Originally Posted by equestrian View Post
    From previous post

    Using nearest even whole numbers

    Atomic Weight of hydrogen = 10080

    Diameter of the moon = 2160

    Diameter of the earth (3960 average radius) = 7920

    2160 plus 7920 = 10080

    The earth plus the moon = hydrogen ---- is a God equation

    eq
    /
    Three questions:

    (1) How did the ancients know about the atomic weight of hydrogen x 100 amu?

    (2) Would you consider me pointing out that one of your numbers is not actually to the nearest whole number be considered by you to be a "negative comment?"

    (3) Would you consider the following to be a type of "God equation?"



    I was actually surprised at this result (no I am not mocking this. I was exploring some numbers on some loosely related topics, a dime and a silver dollar, and was surprised to see a number close to what I recognized).





    The (diameter of a dime times its thickness) + (the diameter of a silver dollar times its thickness * 1/mm) = the acceleration due to gravity near the surface of the earth.


    units are ignored at the last step:

    (17.91 (mm) * 1.35 (mm)) + ( 38.1 (mm) * 2.58 (mm)/mm )

    (2.41785 × 10^-5 m^2) + 9.8 cm

    Now ignore units

    = 9.82



    Which to within the hundreths is the acceleration due to gravity.



    Would this indicate that American money is destined to accelerate in a downward direction, if it WERE a God equation?
    Last edited by Cartesiantheater; Jun 8th, 2010 at 12:33 AM.
    "I was put on trial twice near Y2K for acting like Jesus and claiming to be the Messiah. Its not everyday that a man parks a Chariot of Fire in front of a tomb and stands against the US government with a bow and razor tipped arrows over his shoulder. I wore a suit of armor and was protected by an invisible bubble and my sharp tongue was more than the judicial system could handle."Jake
    "The toilet is more than a throne. It is a sacred chamber."-Anton LaVey, High Priest of Satanism

  20. #20
    Prepared survivor Seasoned Member equestrian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    In the land of hurricanes and alligators
    Posts
    479
    Cartesiantheater
    Which to within the hundreths is the acceleration due to gravity.
    eq) Pretty cool -

    Cartesiantheater
    Now ignore units
    eq) Metaphor being an imaginative comparison (right?)

    Cartesiantheater
    Two questions:

    (1) How did the ancients know about the atomic weight of hydrogen x 100 amu?

    (2) Would you consider me pointing out that one of your numbers is not actually to the nearest whole number be considered by you to be a "negative comment?"
    eq) atomic weight of hydrogen? - I haven't the foggiest - but I do know that there is a lot of Greek art that uses the hydrogen spectrum as a theme - and that is a fact

    Cartesiantheater
    negative comment
    eq) There is an old proverb the origin of which was lost in antiquity ::
    Don't mess with God equations
    .

    The avatar? Oh that's Ben our Arab gelding!

  21. #21
    AIZUMNO1 ZA5O5UUM dedanoe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Dedanoe City, Armageddonia (Center of Balkan)
    Age
    37
    Posts
    1,825
    Cartesian would you makeup your mind between Rotes Per Minute vs Inverse Second, which one of them is 1 Hz? The period of time expressed in sec required for 1 rote expressed in r times the number of rotes expressed in r over unit of time expressed in sec = no counterparts but pure 1. f T = 1 not f t = 1? t = n T it reads the ellapsed time is the number of rotes times the period for one rote and so n = f t not 1; frequency cannot be number of ones per given time but it can only be numbers of rotes or completed oscillatory cycles per unit of time. if you measure quantity then you must specify quality. if frequency is the number of rotes per minute then the product of frequency and wavelength in meters cannot be meters per second but: c n = f l. it reads "what is the frequency to the number of rotes that is the speed of light to the wavelength"; the majority is not always the right one, hell no, majority is right only in the end when the right one manages to win the fight over who is right.

    i would not qualify the article as scientific (physics/math) but the way i see it, it belongs in symbol management domain (having me doing the same thing they'll call it schizophrenia). i raised the question before: do the letters of which the words are made have any basic atomic meaning so that the meaning of the words which are composed of those letter can be precisely calculated as some integral meaning; by which rule do you cook them words; what has the letter 's' to do with the object in front of you to which is assigned the word 'website' (not the very word 'website' but the object to which it is associated); what is the nature of them letters. as symbols they are forms that explain other forms and the form, the shape, the pattern or the way matter is structurally organizes is the idea that matter carries. if it has form then it is based on matter it holds on matter and if it is material then it must have form.
    Last edited by dedanoe; Jul 9th, 2010 at 5:20 PM.
    http://forums.armageddononline.org/signaturepics/sigpic4099_4.gif
    don't ask for money and the energy is free

  22. #22
    Survivalist! Freddy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Worcester, MA
    Posts
    3,537
    Here are a few criticisms/errors of the Equation of Creation.

    "Errors in the equation

    There are several errors in Cumming's equation.
    [edit] Lack of units in equation

    The first major error in the equation is the failure to retain units used in the equation. Cumming argues that the numbers provide significant proof of the existence of a creator, yet Hlf (basic unit: cycles/second) and C0 (basic unit: distance/time) do not balance on opposite sides of the equation. Pi is a unitless number, as is Ω. This is akin to coming up with an equation like (100 pounds * 10 * 0.5) = 500 hours. The numbers may match up (500 on one side, 500 on the other), but that doesn't prove that one pound is the same as one hour.
    [edit] Arbitrary measurements in equation

    "Cumming first realised the importance of the equation when he recognised the equation produced the number 361,448 – a very accurate value for the speed of light expressed in the Thom units of an ancient Stone Age measurement system." It is peculiar that Cumming would argue that the number of an ancient civilization would match up with a measurement of the modern age, namely the megahertz measurement of Hlf. This choosing of two different standards of measurements to declare that they have some meaning with π and a number Cumming made up shows no real significance. One could argue any two constants could equal each other using other standard math ratios or constants.
    [edit] Ratio of earth to moon

    Cumming argues that the ratio of the earth's weight to the moon's is 1/81. However, weight is a measurement of gravity on mass, and Cumming does not reveal which gravity he uses to determine this. The mass of the earth is 5.9736 * 1024 kg. The mass of the moon is 7.3477 * 1022. Provided the masses of the bodies are used, rather than the weights, one would arrive at an approximate ratio of 1/81.
    [edit] Ω is the ratio

    Cumming also argues that "1/81 equates to the very unusual decimal fraction 0.0123456789." Yet 1/81 is 0.0123456789... (repeating). This is, yet again, Cumming offering a rounded figure to arrive at the numbers he desires. The moon/earth mass ratio is not precisely Ω, nor is it precisely 1/81. Even if it were, Cumming never offers a reasonable argument for why this ratio should be proof that a creator is sending us a message. Given a long enough list of physical constants it is possible to reproduce any given number if, as Cumming has done, one ignores the need to balance units. For example, 1/81 is also the ratio of the atomic number of hydrogen (1) to the atomic number of thallium (81). Spooky!
    [edit] Other arguments
    [edit] Miraculous equation

    "When we look at the overall equation, we know in advance that the equation will give the value for the speed of light very accurately because what we’re doing is multiplying the frequency of the hydrogen line by the wavelength of the hydrogen line. But remember, we’ve divided π (3.141592653) by Ω (0.0123456789) to get a result for the hydrogen line wavelength expressed in Thoms, so the fact that we get a highly accurate answer for this is nothing short of a miracle."

    It's a miracle, all right. First, Cummings has divided two unitless numbers and arrived at a number with units, a lá '30 ÷ 6 = 5 volts'. Second, "the speed of light is calculated using the equation is 1420,405,750 cycles per sec (frequency (Hz)) multiplied by 0.2544690072 Thoms (wavelength). This works out at 361,437,469.8 Thoms/sec" [sic]. But \frac{\pi}{\Omega}=254.4690072, not 0.2544690072. So Cummings is off by three orders of magnitude (103)."

    http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/The_Equ...n_the_equation

    "Our purpose here at RationalWiki includes:

    1. Analyzing and refuting pseudoscience and the anti-science movement.
    2. Documenting the full range of crank ideas.
    3. Explorations of authoritarianism and fundamentalism."

    http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Main_Page
    "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" G. Santayana

  23. #23
    Dead Meat
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    3
    Time Measurement Conversion (scroll down)
    ________________________________

    I believe there is a God. God Most High (Luke 1:35)

    In response to: "The Equation of Creation"

    In the Beginning God created the Heavens arnd the Earth.
    --->God's Claim "I AM the Creator of Time/Space/Universe."

    Using the Forumla for Time:

    12:00 AM = 00:00 (the beginning)
    12:00 PM = (the end)
    --->Revelations 22:13 "Jesus is the beginning and the end"
    --->Isaiah 46:9-10 "God declared the end from the begininng" (scroll down to find what year)

    12:00 (min/hr hand point to THE MOST HIGH/ Heaven)
    --->Luke 1:35 "Jesus: Son of the Most High God"

    12:00 (min/hr hand at 12/12)
    12:12 (min/sec) = 732 seconds
    7:32 is opposite 5:28 on a clock face
    --->Yehoshua = 528 (hebrew)

    1200 seconds = 0.333 hours **five identities below**
    hr/min/sec hand at 3/3/3 = 15:15:15
    --->15 = 5+2+8 **see above for identity**

    33.3 minutes = 1998 seconds
    --->1.99800199800.. = 1/0.50050
    --->5:00:50 (min/hr hand at 5/12/10)
    --->hr/min/sec hand at 5/12/10 is opposite hr/min/sec hand at 7/6/2
    --->Yehoshua = 762 (jewish)

    Who is the Most High God? = 1533 (jewish)
    15:33 = 3:33 PM

    The Number Three Hundred Thirty-Three = 1904 (Jewish)
    1904 seconds = 0.528888 hours
    --->Yehoshua = 528 (hebrew)

    19:04 = 7:04 PM
    Yeshua = 704 (jewish)


    Yehoshua HaMeshiach = 925 (jewish)
    92.5 minutes = 5550 seconds
    --->5.550 minutes = 333 seconds **see above for identity**

    God = 86 (hebrew) **two identities below**
    86 seconds = 1:26 (min/sec)
    1:26 is opposite 23:34 on a clock face **identities below**

    23:34 = 11:34 PM
    11:34 (min/sec) = 11.5666 minutes
    1156 = 34 x 34

    00:34 = 12:34 AM
    12:34 (min/sec) = 754 seconds
    --->My Holy Name = 754 (hebrew)
    --->Yehoshua HaMeshiach = 754 (hebrew)

    86 (continued)
    8 x 6 = 48
    0.48 hours = 1728 seconds
    17:28 = 5:28 PM
    --->Yehoshua = 528 (hebrew)

    The Number of the Messiah = 234 (english) 333 (reverse eng.)

    God = 354 (greek)
    3:54 (min/sec) = 15:54
    154 seconds = 2:34 (min/sec)

    23.3444 hours = 84040 seconds
    8:40:40 (min/hr/sec hand at 8/8/8)
    --->IESOUS = 888 (greek)
    --->MESSIAH = 888 (hebrew)

    154 seconds = 2:34 (min/sec) **see above for identity**

    0.154444 hours = 556 seconds
    5:56 is opposite 7:04 on a clock face
    Yeshua = 704 (jewish)


    NOTE: 2012 (END OF AGE/ MAYAN CALENDAR) **see below**

    THE MOST HIGH (12:00)
    12:00 AM = 00:00 (The beginning)
    12:00 PM = The End
    God declared the end from the beginning.

    00:00 min/hr hand at 12/12
    1212 seconds = 20:12
    --->mayan end of age calendar (12/21/2012)
    --->the strong delusion (2 thessalonians 2)

    (END OF NOTE)

    Thoughts?

    Your Friend,
    Chris

    links:
    http://www.biblewheel.com/GR/GR_Identities.asp
    http://www.gematrix.org
    http://www.clocknumerology.com


    26 seconds = 0.43333 minutes
    --->26 divided by 60
    26 seconds = 0.0072222 hours
    --->26 divided by 3600

    to fingure minutes
    --->multiply everything after the decimal by 0.6 (six tenths)

    3:33 is opposite 9:27
    333 - (1260)
    Always subtract 1260 (it's a fixed ratio)

    When the hour/min hands are at 12/6, you'll have to have a clock face to translate. You can still use the 1260 ratio, yet only the minutes are translated -not the hour.
    Last edited by ClockNumerology; Apr 23rd, 2012 at 7:34 PM.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Site Meter