1. Established Member
Join Date
Apr 2003
Posts
190

## The Creation Equation

Would some person with extensive math explain this one :-k

[( p*(9/4p).Loge30) - F]*(2p/3) = 20p

http://www.geocities.com/godisreal_uk/

2. ## Re: The Creation Equation

One word: garbage.

3. Ask the BA for the details. That's the grimy part of maintaining this site.

First, there is deliberate obfuscation. He uses pi in some places as a constant, others as a variable (if I can even understand him). He DECLARES certain values. So what? I just declared I am Jeddak of Thark. He adds certain mathy looking things like log(e)30, which is just a constant.

Without trying to figure out what he is doing in any detail, it looks like he has found that by trial and error the cooked ratios of planetary orbital distances can be fitted to a straight line. Then he comes up with a complicated-looking equation for the line.

Garbage.

4. Established Member
Join Date
Feb 2003
Posts
444
That page makes me sad. Sad and hungry. Or maybe it's just dinnertime.

As far as I can see (and it's hard to see very far on a page that sometimes uses pi as a variable and writes equations in the form complicated_expression = constant), the author has somehow miraculously found that data on mean planetary orbital distances can be fit to a curve with a little random unexplainable garbage work.

5. value value^0.001
1 1
4 1.001387256
28 1.003337762
300 1.00572008
5000 1.008553568

Note that by taking the numbers in the left hand column and raising them to the 0.001 power, they become a straight line accurate to within one part per thousand. By obvious extension, as the exponent goes to zero all numbers go to 1. Therefore all numbers are really 1.

6. Established Member
Join Date
Apr 2003
Posts
190
Quote
Abductions.
Abduction stories are rarely taken seriously. The mathematics on this site proves that there is indeed an alien power that is fully capable of abducting humans, and that this alien power is in the vicinity of Earth.
Although this does not prove that abductions happen, and does not suggest a motive for abductions, it does provide a good argument for taking abduction stories more seriously.
The math proves that there is a power with the ability to abduct, so the abductee stories are not totally ridiculous, nor are they necessarily psychological delusions, or imaginary.
There is a possible abductor, a fact proven by mathematics. Abduction stories could well be accounts of real physical events.
http://www.geocities.com/godisreal_uk/ufo.htm

I was reading more into this guy's web site, I am starting to think he may have a few problems

7. Order of Kilopi
Join Date
May 2002
Posts
5,527
Originally Posted by mike alexander
..............He adds certain mathy looking things like log(e)30.......

That pretty much describes it. I'm not sure these kind of people do it on purpose. I think they get high on meth or coke and stay up too long. Then they have some bizzare revelation and think they have found the meaning of life or something.

Originally Posted by Mike and Cougar
Garbage.
ditto

8. ## Re: The Creation Equation

Oh boy, this one took me a while to decipher.

The first obstacle in this page is the use of the symbol p.
A circle of circumference three (arbitrary units) has a radius of (3/2p) and an area of (9/4p).
... or in other words, p == π (pi). Even if you can't write the normal symbol on the page, explain your shorthand.

It gets even more confused:
The upper limit for the inner system is declared to be at the value of 'p' astronomical units, (...)
So, we have two different uses of p; one is an arbitrarily chosen 'boundary' between the inner and outer system, the other is a shorthand for π. Confusion mounts, but we can still keep track as the p in the exponents seems to be the π.

Now, on to the actual relationship. With somewhat differently chosen variable names, the statement is that:
x^(9/4π) * C - F == y^(3/2π)
where
x = the semimajor axis of a planet in the inner system, in AU
y = the semimajor axis of a planet in the outer system, in AU
C = proportionality constant, stated to be 3.401197 AU^(2/3)
F = proportionality constant, fitted to be 0.500772 AU^(3/2π)

The equation is stated to work only for values of x less than π astronomical units, though no special explanation for this is given. Inserting the semimajor axis for an inner planet orbit will yield the semimajor axis for an outer planet, to a high accuracy as it seems - I haven't checked the figures.

The "independent evaluation" page made much more sense than the actual site, but it seems the pairs of planets that can be made to fit are picked more or less at random. The relationship apparently doesn't work if you start using anything but AUs, though, which suggests to me that this is an artifact of using very small units of measurement. The units overall are very strange, hinting that the relationship is more interesting numerologically than physically.

He also makes a lot of noise about the so-called "Venus equation", which seems to be a very awkward restatement of Titus-Bode's rule:
a = 0.3 + 0.4 * 2^n, where n for Venus = 0, Earth = 1, Mars = 2 ... (Mercury doesn't quite fit here, since there is no n such that 2^n = 0)
Naturally, any comparison of planetary orbits will assign a 'special' place to Venus, since it has the first orbit which satisfies the relationship.

9. Established Member
Join Date
Nov 2001
Posts
1,961
Originally Posted by the author
The mathematics demonstrates that the major (planetary) orbits of the Solar System are precisely ordered, and conform to an artificial mathematical equation to within 0.2%.
I refer to the equation as The Creation Equation
The mathematics proves beyond any reasonable doubt that the scientific account of the origin of the Solar System is not correct.
I wonder how the author thinks he's done that... :-?

The whole idea behind the site is nonsense. So he's noticed some regularities in the solar system, which can be expressed with formulas. Newton did the same! Einstein did the same!
He doesn't seem to think that F=GMm/r^2 or E=mc^2 prove intelligent design, yet somehow his formula does... Why? What's so special about his formula that it comes with a theological meaning attached to the astronomical meaning, when other formulas don't?

Originally Posted by AstroSmurf
Oh boy, this one took me a while to decipher.

The first obstacle in this page is the use of the symbol p.
A circle of circumference three (arbitrary units) has a radius of (3/2p) and an area of (9/4p).
... or in other words, p == &lt;pi> (pi). Even if you can't write the normal symbol on the page, explain your shorthand.
He does that here.

10. Established Member
Join Date
May 2003
Posts
1,214
ironic that he believes in Intelligent Design when his site and content look to be the product the the evolution of a random number generator.

11. Actually, this site is pretty much of a riot. Here is the marketing version. The absurdities exploding beneath every statement! A few favorites:

Can it be that humans, a complex carbon life form, actually live on a planet within a solar system designed to resemble a carbon 12 atom?
Resemble?

My model explains such anomalies as the asteroid belt, the formation of huge gas giants and the abnormalities of Venus and Neptune to other planets in our known solar system at this time.
[hypnosis] ...this sounds vaguely... familiar... [/hypnosis]

The best way for me to explain what 1 3 7 means to physicists is that it is the "fine-structure constant" of quantum electrodynamics. It is considered by some to be almost the glue that holds atoms together.
What deep understanding! And this is related to his source of the three numbers how?

12. Join Date
May 2003
Posts
82
Cougar, it looks like this guy's main problem is that he's simply another whack job with only enough knowledge to be dangerous. He can't even spell "Nibiru" correctly, even if he knows where it is (of course he knows).

I read the other "math" site first and I know I have rarely been mistaken for Russell Crowe (sometimes, but rarely) but I have learned some things about math, at least natural logs and such. The only math he does is make up an arbitrary algebraic equation with one real variable, and then solves for said variable. Whoopee. The Creation Formula is just that, a creation that means nothing, certainly not that God exists. informant correctly notes that the ordinary natural laws are much more appealing as evidence that an orderly God created them.

The reason why this guy wants to prove God exists is, he thinks HE's God! Note the name he awards himself, Sollog Immanuel Adonai-Adoni. Sollog = "light of God"; Immanuel = "God with us", a name applied to Jesus; Adonai is the main (I think it's the main) Hewbrew name for God Almighty and is IIRC what Torah readers say when they encounter the Tetragrammaton (YHWH) that is too holy to pronounce aloud; and Adoni = "Lord"!!! Is the Universe big enough to contain this guy's ego??

Another crackpot falls to logic and facts, which means it's a typical happy, productive day around here.

13. Established Member
Join Date
Nov 2001
Posts
1,961
Originally Posted by OscartheGrouch
Note the name he awards himself, Sollog Immanuel Adonai-Adoni. Sollog = "light of God"; Immanuel = "God with us", a name applied to Jesus; Adonai is the main (I think it's the main) Hewbrew name for God Almighty and is IIRC what Torah readers say when they encounter the Tetragrammaton (YHWH) that is too holy to pronounce aloud; and Adoni = "Lord"!!! Is the Universe big enough to contain this guy's ego??
I wouldn't make too much of that. Many people into New Age/esoterical religion like that sort of name.

14. Actually, I vaguely recall some simple formula (much simpler than the above gibberish) that generated the approximate relative distances of most of the planets. I say "most" because one or two of the planets don't fit the formula. And the formula predicts a planet which is not present. Otherwise, it's an interesting little curiosity. But "intelligent design"? Not at all convincing. I mean, what's the message, God's a mathematician, but not a very good one?

Originally Posted by OscartheGrouch
Another crackpot falls to logic and facts, which means it's a typical happy, productive day around here.

15. The data (distance from sun in Astronomical Units)

Mercury 0.387
Venus 0.723
Earth 1.00
Mars 1.524
Jupiter 5.203
Saturn 9.539
Uranus 19.18
Neptune 30.06
Pluto 39.53

16. Established Member
Join Date
Nov 2001
Posts
1,961
Originally Posted by Cougar
Actually, I vaguely recall some simple formula (much simpler than the above gibberish) that generated the approximate relative distances of most of the planets.
Do you mean Bode’s Law? Here’s an earlier thread that touched this issue: Solar System: evidence of design II

17. Originally Posted by informant
Do you mean Bode’s Law?
Right, Bode's Law. (Jeez, why couldn't I find that?)

LOL - I particularly liked DStahl's comment from that other thread....

Dec 17, 2002 - If we graph the distance of the planets from the sun then it becomes a matter of constructing a curve which fits the points. I may be mathematically naive here, but given 9 data points I think it's relatively trivial to find an equation which will produce a compound curve fitting those points, isn't it? You could do it for the masses of the planets, the wingspan of 9 different butterflies, the surface area of 9 lakes, or the time it takes 9 seeds to sprout.
All evidence of divine design! :roll:

18. Given a bit of thought, it shouldn't be that surprising that the equation can be made to fit. You have 4 unknown parameters in it, and there are 4 data points to establish their values. If this had been a polynomial equation, you could even have gotten a perfect fit.

Further, both of the exponents are less than 1 (0.477 and 0.716 respectively), which makes the resulting parameters fairly insensitive to the data. In other words, it's more surprising that there is a 2% error for Saturn than that the other points match up. I suspect that whoever wrote the independent evaluation hasn't run a stability analysis on the equation; I could do this, but frankly, it's more work than this merits.

19. Banned
Join Date
Jul 2002
Posts
314
Originally Posted by AstroSmurf
I suspect that whoever wrote the independent evaluation hasn't run a stability analysis on the equation; I could do this, but frankly, it's more work than this merits.
Maybe it`s worth the effort have you read this:
From the front page:
http://www.geocities.com/godisreal_uk/

-Notice-

"To all scientists and mathematicians, and all others reading this:-

Please assiduously check the data and calculations presented in these pages. If anyone can find any significant mistake, such as would invalidate the conclusions, the author will gladly delete this entire website.
As long as this website remains, readers may be assured that no such mistake has been discovered.
The conclusion stands, 'God' is real."

20. Originally Posted by Aldrin
Maybe it`s worth the effort...
"Please assiduously check the data and calculations... If anyone can find any significant mistake, the author will gladly delete this entire website...."
Oh, right away, "Mr. Adoni." I'm going to drop everything and do what you - some web wacko - tell me to do and try to figure out and debunk your ridiculous "mathematical" expression when I have serious doubts that you ever took much math in high school, if you graduated at all.

But the above claim is contradicted by the site's first sentence....

"...this web site has been abandoned."
If it's been "abandoned," then there's nobody to delete it when the many "significant mistakes" are pointed out.

Abandonment is probably a fitting end to such sites.

21. To prove DStahl's point, "...given 9 data points I think it's relatively trivial to find an equation which will produce a compound curve fitting those points, isn't it?" I poured the data into an old, cheap graphing program, which instantly generated the planet-fitting 5th order polynomial equation below....

22. Established Member
Join Date
Apr 2003
Posts
835
You know, there've got to be... um... the sorts of computer users that John Ashcroft doesn't like, who participate on this forum. If that sites been abandoned, then one thinks it might be possible for one of these computer users to modify it and make it more instructive in nature.

*sigh* Or at least we can dream.

23. Originally Posted by Betenoire
...it might be possible for one of these computer users to modify it and make it more instructive in nature.
I doubt if the password to the site is very imaginative. :P Something like "godisgreat" (?) :-k

24. Member
Join Date
Aug 2003
Posts
37
Originally Posted by the author
The mathematics demonstrates that the major (planetary) orbits of the Solar System are precisely ordered, and conform to an artificial mathematical equation to within 0.2%.
I like the fact that it's "to within 0.2%". God is real. God is all-powerful. God set the planets in their places. God reveals His purpose to us through the beautiful mathematical relationship between the planets' positions. But he's only 99.8% accurate. Give Him a break, will ya?

25. Banned
Join Date
Jul 2002
Posts
314
Originally Posted by Cougar
To prove DStahl's point, "...given 9 data points I think it's relatively trivial to find an equation which will produce a compound curve fitting those points, isn't it?" I poured the data into an old, cheap graphing program, which instantly generated the planet-fitting 5th order polynomial equation below....
Nice linear progression Mr Pussycat.

26. You could also probably fit it nicely to a nested hyperbolic.

27. Banned
Join Date
Jul 2002
Posts
314
the author of the equation as nothing to do with this site,so even if you gloack about the content of that site the equation is still working.
I let you try proving it doesn`t work Mr Pussycat (Couga...rrr) the great mathematician :roll:
http://members.aol.com/astroequation/
Discovered by G.E.S.Curtis in 1980.

28. Originally Posted by Cougar
To prove DStahl's point, "...given 9 data points I think it's relatively trivial to find an equation which will produce a compound curve fitting those points, isn't it?" I poured the data into an old, cheap graphing program, which instantly generated the planet-fitting 5th order polynomial equation below....
Intersting... the curve even hooks up a bit near the origin, indicating that you can't have a planet orbiting at or inside the Sun... 8)

29. My Higher Physics teacher had a graph on his wall... accompanied by a table of values and an equation. When I asked about it, he explained that it showed that any two random sets of values could be connected by an equation if you tried enough. Sure enough, the scatter of points on the graph was random, although the line of his equation went right though it.

The moral: when finding an equation to connect two sets of values, figure out what sort of meaning it has.

30. D J
Banned
Join Date
Jul 2002
Posts
653
Originally Posted by Alex W.
My Higher Physics teacher had a graph on his wall... accompanied by a table of values and an equation. When I asked about it, he explained that it showed that any two random sets of values could be connected by an equation if you tried enough. Sure enough, the scatter of points on the graph was random, although the line of his equation went right though it.

The moral: when finding an equation to connect two sets of values, figure out what sort of meaning it has.
The Equation gives more than two sets of values.
The equation is more than only a linear progression given by a polymonial and the Bode law.
The equation works like this;
You take the size of the orbit of Mercury,
process it trough the equation, and out comes the size of the orbit of
Mars. Then you plug in Venus's orbit and get out Jupiter's. Then Earth
gives Saturn, and Mars gives Uranus.
http://members.aol.com/_ht_a/astroeq...s/38eee982.jpg

http://members.aol.com/_ht_a/astroequation/mathone.htm

An analysis of that equation gives this:
This equation has several degrees of freedom, i.e.
parameters that were selected to make the equation fit the
orbits of the planets. The parameters are (9/4*pi), ln30,
(2/3*pi) and F. Given the way that the formula is laid out,
I would say even the 9,4 and 2,3 are separate parameters. These
parameters were then selected so that the formula gives the
distances to the planets from the Sun in AU. Therefore, it
is not surprising at all that the result for earth is 1, because
the equation was selected to achieve just that result.
If the Origin of the equation is really from
there, this is the demonstration that mankind in the past have an advanced knowledge of the mechanics of the solar system and the constant Pi to say the least!
http://hometown.aol.com/stoneequation/index.htm
NOTE i don`t necessary agree with the conclusion of the author
Conclusion
Taking all the above facts into consideration, it is difficult to maintain the notion that the Solar System originated solely by the action of gravity on a random distribution of dust particles."

#### Posting Permissions

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