 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsSpace ScienceAstronomyAmateur AstronomySpace FlightSpace StationShuttleSpace HistorySpace PolicySETI SpaceKB.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Space Forum / Astronomy / September 2004Geometry in the sky
What do you think about this? www.solargeometry.com ? Does it mach with your calculations? Beautiful geometry up there > What do you think about this? www.solargeometry.com ? > > Does it mach with your calculations? Beautiful geometry up there Say, do you fall for every scam out there? Do you also believe in Hoagland's numerology? Bye, Bjoern > Say, do you fall for every scam out there? Do you also believe in > Hoagland's numerology? > > Bye, > Bjoern Let´s just say i have very good reasons to believe in this. Therefore i don´t believe you have investigated it yourself. Of course i can´t say it truts it 100% and that is why i asked. But closed mindedness and science does not match very well > But closed mindedness and science does not match very well What science? > > But closed mindedness and science does not match very well > > What science? High school maths applied to pre-Kepler astronomy in various arbitrary ways. And a little number magick. That's science, innit? > High school maths applied to pre-Kepler astronomy in various arbitrary ways. > And a little number magick. > That's science, innit? High school math? It´s just a question of finding the fastest road. There is just + and - Can you tell me what is wrong with the geometry and calculations on that website? I just ask because i have not researched that area myself. From the site: The Earth - Mars Relationship Take the distances of Earth and Mars from the Sun in Earth-based Astronomical Units and you get nothing special: Planet Distance from the sun in km (000) Distance in AU per NASA Earth 149,600 1.00000 Mars 227,940 1.52366 Let the distance of Mercury again be 1 and you get an entirely different perspective: Planet Distance from the Sun in km (000) Distance where Mercury equals 1 Earth 149,600 2.5833 Earth¾ 2.0377 Mars 227,940 3.9361 Solar Geometry, using a ratio of 3.936458, reveals this intriguing relationship between the Sun, Earth and Mars Jupiter: Earth¾ * (½ ( Ö6 + Ö2 )) = Mars = 3.936458 If you saw a strange sign it was root 6 + root 2 > The Earth - Mars Relationship > Take the distances of Earth and Mars from the Sun in Earth-based [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > Earth¾ * (½ ( Ö6 + Ö2 )) = Mars = 3.936458 > From the site: <SNIP> > Earth¾ * (½ ( Ö6 + Ö2 )) = Mars = 3.936458 So, some random mathematical operations yield some meaningless result. Interesting. > From the site: > [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > Earth¾ * (½ ( Ö6 + Ö2 )) = Mars = 3.936458 Since the ratios are the same, how can choosing different units make a difference? This technique is called numerology and is based on the fact that you can take any random set of numbers and find "relationships" like these by picking powers to suit, or by trying different units. Add to that the fact that gravitational effects tend to synchronise orbits and these coincidences are bound to occur. Further, they are based on "Earth 149,600" which is the semi-major axis. What about eccentricity, aphelion, perihelion, inclination etc? The whole thing is naive and trivial. In fact it is obvious from the title that the author is just a religious nut using an old parlour trick to con the gullible. Nicely laid out site, but don't be fooled by appearances, you were wise to ask in the group, (<gripe> even if it is mostly politics and flame wars at the moment </gripe>). George "> Since the ratios are the same, how can choosing > different units make a difference? This technique > is called numerology and is based on the fact that [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > George Hi george Instead of using units from earth they start with Mercury as 1. For example this relation includes borth periphelion and aphelion: Mercury and its Aphelion / Perihelion Mercury = 1 Perihelion = 2- ½ (root2+1) = 0.792893 Aphelion = ½ (root2+1) = 1.207107 Start with a circle for Mercury's mean orbital distance, and then construct a square with sides of the same length. The midpoint between the radius of the circle and the diagonal of the square is Mercury's aphelion (A), the outside point of its orbit. The same distance towards the Sun is Mercury's perihelion (P), the inside point of its orbit. Tell you what, try this little experiment at home. Concentrate and pick a number. Add 2 to this number. Now, by carefully examining the result, you'll discover that it's exactly 2 greater than the original number. Wow. Try this with a few other numbers. The rule seems to apply every time! Spooky! This can only mean that Planet X will appear in exactly 2 years from now. (Assuming that you really really really want Planet X to appear in 2 years from now). See the point? This is what numerology boils down to, when you peel off the red herrings. > "> Since the ratios are the same, how can choosing > > different units make a difference? This technique [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Hi george Hi Johan, > Instead of using units from earth they start with Mercury as 1. I know, and that's the point. All units are arbitrary, it shouldn't matter what you choose to call "1" the physics should be the same. The fact that he has to use the length of the semi-major axis of a partucular planet makes it obvious he is just contriving results. > For example this relation includes borth periphelion and aphelion: > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Perihelion = 2- ½ (root2+1) = 0.792893 > Aphelion = ½ (root2+1) = 1.207107 If this was a real principle then the same relationship should hold for each of the other planets. That would mean that all the planetary orbits should have exactly the same eccentricity. You can easily check that and you will find they don't. http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/ These are completely bogus relationships pulled out of thin air. There are an infinite number of possible combinations of powers of numbers so he can just choose anything that is relatively close. The whole thing is totally pointless. As several people have pointed out, this is called "numerology" and we see it in the group regularly. There is even have TV game show in the UK where people get some numbers and a result and have to concoct a formula to combine the numbers to get as close as possible to the target result. This guy is just playing that game with you. Don't be conned. best regards George > From the site: [minor snip] > Planet Distance > from [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Earth¾ * (½ ( Ö6 + Ö2 )) = Mars = 3.936458 According to my calculator, 2.5833*3/4=1.937475, not 2.0377. But that isn't the problem. The problem is where sqrt(6), 3/4 and 1/2 come from. Think about it for a minute. You didn't "find" anything, but introduced the relationships yourself when arbitrarily chosing from an infinite number of possible functions and "holy" numbers. This is, of course, the problem with all kinds of numerology. >>Say, do you fall for every scam out there? Do you also believe in >>Hoagland's numerology? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Let´s just say i have very good reasons to believe in this. Therefore i > don´t believe you have investigated it yourself. What's to investigate there? They took a large number of numbers and played around until they found some approximate relationships between them. And now they pretend that these relationships are 100% exact, and this is proof of "design". A totally nonsensical argument. Numerology. > Of course i can´t say it truts it 100% and that is why i asked. > > But closed mindedness and science does not match very well Hint: gullibility and numerology on the one side, and science on the other side, also do not match very well. Bye, Bjoern |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.