The Creation Equation

[Celestial Mechanic]

As an exercise:

Instead of trying to fit a curve of a versus n, try a semilogarthmic plot. That is, plot log(a) versus n. Fit a line to the resulting points using linear regression. Don't forget to leave a blank for the asteroid belt! That is, count Mars as n=4 and Jupiter as n=6, etc. For extra points, calculate the correlation coefficient. You should get a number very close to 1. For further extra points, omit Pluto. The correlation coefficient should be even closer to 1.

Moral of the story: you only need two parameters to fit the planetary distances very well in a formula of the form a(n) = b * r^n, where b and r are the antilogs of the coefficients found by fittling the semilog plot to a straight line.

[D J]

Moral of the story: you only need two parameters to fit the planetary distances very well in a formula of the form a(n) = b * r^n, where b and r are the antilogs of the coefficients found by fittling the semilog plot to a straight line.

As i have said the interesting part of the Equation is that it is not limited to a linear progression as demonstrated here.
http://hometown.aol.com/astroequation/mathtwo.htm

[beskeptical]

Math fun aside, you must show in research how your conclusion was arrived at from the evidence.

What could explain absolute symmetry in the solar system if hypothetically, it was there. Lots of things. It is absurd to conclude any special characteristics you find in the Universe prove god.

Quasars rotate at an unexplainable rate. That proves god. :roll:

[D J]

I have stated before than I don`t necessary agree with the conclusions of the author.

Quasars rotate at an unexplainable rate. That proves god.

So don`t try to use some absurd comparaisons. :roll:

[beskeptical]

I have stated before than I don`t necessary agree with the conclusions of the author.

Quasars rotate at an unexplainable rate. That proves god.

So don`t try to use some absurd comparaisons. :roll:

"I'm gonna soak up the Sun, gonna tell everyone to lighten up..."
I wasn't speaking to your post specifically, and I did note that you were only talking about the math and not about the conclusion. I was merely reinforcing my first conclusion about the equation: garbage. I thought it might need reinforcing given how long this thread had become.


"....I'm gonna soak up the Sun." Song's been going through my head all day.

[D J]

I was merely reinforcing my first conclusion about the equation: garbage.

What is the precise part of the equation makes you conclude this is garbage can you gives us more details?

Is it the near-perfect grid construction (of the Solar System) discovered by the author?

"Constructing a near-perfect grid

The grid could be produced from (almost) pure maths, and would then be regarded as 'perfect'. We need to accept Earth as unity, and we need a knowledge of Mercury mean as a datum. These form a basis for calculating all the other orbits.
The grid, or matrix, is interesting in many ways, not least because it demonstrates how neatly the orbits are arranged in a bilateral Pythagorean pattern 'abc*ABC' that repeats itself four times.

The grid illustrates how calculations can be made via a wide variety of different routes. It illustrates the symmetry in the mathematical arrangement that underlies the Solar System."
http://hometown.aol.com/astroequation/mathtwo.htm

[wedgebert]

Well one thing I noticed is that his results don't match his data on the Orbital Data page.

For example he has Mercury at 0.306 AU for perihelion and 0.467 AU for aphelion with a mean distance of 0.3870987. But if I find the mean of 0.306 and 0.467, I get 0.3865. Most of the other results are off as well.

So either he's "adjusted" the numbers to fit his equation or he's dropping some signinficant digits somewhere. Either one is unaccecptable because it means you can't check his work.

His numbers for Pluto are way off. He comes up with an average distance of 39.439 AU, I get 39.385 AU and a quick search of Google gives an average distance (from multiple sites) of 39.53 AU (with some a slight variation after the hundredths place).

But hey, we've got our own astronomer here, let's ask him what the correct data values are.

[D J]

His numbers for Pluto are way off. He comes up with an average distance of 39.439 AU, I get 39.385 AU and a quick search of Google gives an average distance (from multiple sites) of 39.53 AU (with some a slight variation after the hundredths place).

"Orbital Data
List of Percentage Deviations
Orbital data in astronomical units abstracted from
Norton's Star Atlas (17th edition).
(Except Asteroid belt, which are nominal figures)"
So until there were major change or erronous data from that Atlas that is the basis of his numbers comparaison.
http://hometown.aol.com/astroequation/mathdata.htm

But hey, we've got our own astronomer here, let's ask him what the correct data values are.

Yes Phil is the one who can put some light on that.

[wedgebert]

I know he took them from the Norton Star Atlas, but that means he needs to quote the correct values on his website. I still believe he altered something as well.

I did a quick google search and looked at a half dozen or so different results and all of them give a different answer than what is on this guy's website. The closest answer I found was 39.485 AU, and that small margin alone knocks the percentage deviation up to -0.17% (from -0.05%). And if I plug the listed aphelion and perihelion numbers in and use that mean value, I get a %dev of 0.08% (note that this is positive).

Either way you're looking at a a number that is 0.12 off in either direction. And if I start plugging in the more divergant data, his error level goes over the 0.2% he brags about.

Face it, this guy built his equation and started modifying the data and the equation until he came up with a result that fit.

[Cougar]

What is the precise part of the equation makes you conclude this is garbage can you gives us more details?

What did it for me was how the equation was presented and the variables within the equation were not identified or described. If an equation is to make any sense, it must be followed by a "key" explaining what each variable stands for. E.g.,

y=mx+b

where m=the slope
and b=the y-intercept.

If the author does not know that such information must be supplied with the equation, I am not inclined to go wandering about looking for it.

[D J]

Face it, this guy built his equation and started modifying the data and the equation until he came up with a result that fit.

That is a possibility.
But before accepting that idea so quickly one must verified the data from
the Norton's Star Atlas (17th edition).because he start his calculations based on them...
Edited
You take the size of the orbit of Mercury, (I presume he take that data from the atlas)
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.

[D J]

I am sure than Tim Thompson have the Norton's Star Atlas (17th edition)
I can see it on his office desk
Will he share the info???Tim!!! be 8)

[beskeptical]

From the Encyclopedia Galactica

Bode's Law
(also known as the Titus-Bode Law) is an interesting mathematical coincidence, and not a physical law. However, the general form of geometric spacing is valid in Sol-type stable stellar systems, hence the numerical series that matches planetary distances from Sol and many other stars. Because of resonance, planets form with periods that are rational multiples of each other. As some resonances are stable and others are not, modelling requires complex calculations. The Titus-Bode series predicts the positions of all the planets in the Sol System except Neptune (plus it predicts a planet where the asteroid belt is). In this instance, start with 0.4 (A.U.), then form the series by adding 0, 0.3, 0.6, 1.2, 2.4, etc. (doubling each time after the first). The results it predicts are: Mercury: 0.4 A.U., Venus 0.7 A.U., Earth 1.0 A.U., Mars 1.6 A.U., Asteroid Belt 2.8 A.U., Jupiter 5.2 A.U., Saturn 10.0 A.U., Uranus 19.6 A.U.
[named for Johann Titus and the German astronomer Elert Bode, who did their work in the late 1700's.]

Orion38, what I meant by 'garbage' is just what I said in my clarification. Regardless of any mathematical formula that gave any interesting results, it is meaningless without some logic as to how it proves anything other than an interesting relationship between the orbital paths of the planets in the solar system.

[D J]

Orion38, what I meant by 'garbage' is just what I said in my clarification. Regardless of any mathematical formula that gave any interesting results, it is meaningless without some logic as to how it proves anything other than an interesting relationship between the orbital paths of the planets in the solar system.

What are the probability than a random process can give the caractheristic demonstrated in the near perfect grid?
http://hometown.aol.com/astroequation/mathtwo.htm

Edited for precision
Does the arrangement (so stability) of the system is the cause than we have a Planet able to support life as we know it?Something(Life) who seem to be very unique in the Universe.

[wedgebert]

It's not a random process. As stellar material begins to collapse into stars and planets, they form gravity wells. The gravity wells in turn have an effect on the rest of the system.

The reason (or at least one reason) there are no planets between Jupiter and Saturn is that it's not a stable position with the two nearby gravity wells.

The only people who make a big deal about the "creation equation" are creationists. Not because scientists necessarily don't believe in God, but because scientists realize that you can make equations for darn near anything. Math is flexible that way, however just having an equation doesn't prove anything, especially when they are as inaccurate as the creation equation.

[wah_tze_tuya]

rediscovers The Titius-Bode Law and uses some circular logic to prove the "Existance of God".
I'm not impressed or even amused.
Of course, the proof that God exists lies in the "Bible Codes".
8) :P :wink: :^o

[D J]

I know he took them from the Norton Star Atlas, but that means he needs to quote the correct values on his website. I still believe he altered something as well.

Your suggestion means than you know exactly what the correct values from the Norton Star Atlas 17th edition are.

I did a quick google search and looked at a half dozen or so different results and all of them give a different answer than what is on this guy's website.

That means than you don`t have the exact values from the Norton Star Atlas 17th edition.So how can you say than he have probably changed the values on his vebsite?

[Donnie B.]

How perfect is "near perfect"?

If you have a clock that is as near perfect as his result (even assuming it's correct) it would be off by five minutes after a week.

We engineers can't often get away with only .05% accuracy! I guess God can, though...

[Cougar]

Does the arrangement (so stability) of the system is the cause than we have a Planet able to support life as we know it?

No.

[D J]

How perfect is "near perfect"?

If you have a clock that is as near perfect as his result (even assuming it's correct) it would be off by five minutes after a week.

We engineers can't often get away with only .05% accuracy! I guess God can, though...

That is only based on the capacity of the Creation Equation to render the values of the orbits not the System itself.

[D J]

Does the arrangement (so stability) of the system is the cause than we have a Planet able to support life as we know it?

No.

So you think than if the Planets of the Solar system were on an unstable orbit that will change nothing.

[D J]

Well one thing I noticed is that his results don't match his data on the Orbital Data page.

For example he has Mercury at 0.306 AU for perihelion and 0.467 AU for aphelion with a mean distance of 0.3870987. But if I find the mean of 0.306 and 0.467, I get 0.3865. Most of the other results are off as well.

So either he's "adjusted" the numbers to fit his equation or he's dropping some signinficant digits somewhere. Either one is unaccecptable because it means you can't check his work.

His numbers for Pluto are way off. He comes up with an average distance of 39.439 AU, I get 39.385 AU and a quick search of Google gives an average distance (from multiple sites) of 39.53 AU (with some a slight variation after the hundredths place).

But hey, we've got our own astronomer here, let's ask him what the correct data values are.

Until someone can prove than he don`t gives the exact value from the Norton's Star Atlas (17th edition). I will take for granted than he does it.

http://www.geocities.com/godisreal_uk/design.htm
See second graph down the page Actual Orbit in AU -from Norton's Star Atlas (17th edition)-
VS
Calculated
Orbit in AU -based on the Creation Equation-

[D J]

What is the precise part of the equation makes you conclude this is garbage can you gives us more details?

What did it for me was how the equation was presented and the variables within the equation were not identified or described. If an equation is to make any sense, it must be followed by a "key" explaining what each variable stands for. E.g.,

y=mx+b

where m=the slope
and b=the y-intercept.

If the author does not know that such information must be supplied with the equation, I am not inclined to go wandering about looking for it.

Here it is does it satified you?
http://www.geocities.com/godisreal_uk/primer.htm

[wedgebert]

Until someone can prove than he don`t gives the exact value from the Norton's Star Atlas (17th edition). I will take for granted than he does it.

http://www.geocities.com/godisreal_uk/design.htm
See second graph down the page Actual Orbit in AU -from Norton's Star Atlas (17th edition)-
VS
Calculated
Orbit in AU -based on the Creation Equation-

Well, if he's getting his numbers directly from the Norton's Star Atlas, the people at Norton need to learn how to do math. Take Perihelion distance, add it to the Aphelion distance and divide by two. That gives you the mean orbital distance.

However, if you apply that simple formula to the data on his website, you don't get the expected values. This means he is using erroneous data and his conclusions don't mean anything. Heck, I can use the equation 2X = Y to relate the oribtal distances of the planets as long as don't use the correct data.

National Space Science Data Center Plantary Fact Sheet has some good data on the mean orbital distance, perihelion and aaphelion for the various planets. Just divide the listed distance value by 149.59800 to convert to AUs.

[D J]

Here another one from a different author with differents values
http://finblake.home.mindspring.com/tnpdata.htm

It seem than each Mathematicians arrive to different value.

However the Norton Star Atlas is cited to be the most -famous -and currently used by most astronomers.
-Quote from Amazon-.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...roduct-details
"Editorial Reviews
Amazon.com
Norton's Star Atlas is the most famous astronomical reference in the world, having guided thousands of professional and amateur stargazers in their search of the night skies."

[Cougar]

Here it is does it satified you?
http://www.geocities.com/godisreal_uk/primer.htm

Not in the slightest. Nowhere is the symbol "u" identified as to what it stands for. If fact, when solving for "F", whatever that is, the term "u" was simply ignored. This is not how math is done.

[D J]

Of what U are you talking about
Is it the "u" from AU

A stand for Astronomical
U stand for UNIT

The complete term is Astronomical Unit.

[Cougar]

Of what U are you talking about
Is it the "u" from AU

No. Here is your equation copied directly from your page:

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

where p = pi
and Loge30 = the natural log of 30

What does ú stand for? Why isn't this clarified at the same time the equation is presented?

And besides, as has been pointed out before, the right-hand side of this equation is simply a constant. Why express it in this highly unsimplified form of one number taken to the 3 over 2pi power?? "To save you from remembering a long number"? That's complete hogwash! This is totally ridiculous and proves to me that the person pushing this equation is deliberately trying to look sophisticated, when in fact this person hasn't a CLUE about mathematics, astronomy, cosmology, OR theology!

But why, O Orion, do you so fervently defend this obfuscation? :-k

[D J]

Cougar
I still don`t see where U find the "u" in the main equation? give me the link to the page you find it.
The last page I quote
http://www.geocities.com/godisreal_uk/primer.htm
The main menu
http://members.aol.com/astroequation/

Cougar wrote
And besides, as has been pointed out before, the right-hand side of this equation is simply a constant. Why express it in this highly unsimplified form of one number taken to the 3 over 2pi power?? "To save you from remembering a long number"? That's complete hogwash! This is totally ridiculous and proves to me that the person pushing this equation is deliberately trying to look sophisticated, when in fact this person hasn't a CLUE about mathematics, astronomy, cosmology, OR theology!

Now than the author as over simplified the equation for all being able to work with it you have again something to say?
Are you a naysayer?

[wedgebert]

Here another one from a different author with differents values
http://finblake.home.mindspring.com/tnpdata.htm

It seem than each Mathematicians arrive to different value.

Of course these guys also claim that Neptune's bluish color comes from its distance from the sun (when in reality it's the methane gas).

If you read closer, you'll notice that they didn't calculate the distances for the planets, just their transneptunians. The planetary data comes from the Encycolpeida Britiannica. So again, we cannot verify the numbers.

What we really need is for the BA to come in and tell us what the accepted correct numbers are. Better yet would be a quick page giving the basic data for the planets, sun and maybe even a few stars.

However the Norton Star Atlas is cited to be the most -famous -and currently used by most astronomers.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...roduct-details
"Editorial Reviews
Amazon.com
Norton's Star Atlas is the most famous astronomical reference in the world, having guided thousands of professional and amateur stargazers in their search of the night skies."

This is what further leads me to believe that this guy is changing the data to fit his needs. I doubt that such a popular star atlas would vary so much from data collected by NASA and other researchers.