Doing the Numbers on No. 1

[nebel]

On the first planet to be confirmed to have life; -- Earth :
Distance from Star , Sun: 1 AU *
No. to fit in simplest planetary distance sequence : 10**
Orbit diameter in light seconds 1000**
Number of seconds in year 31 556 600**~ 3.14 x 10^7
Orbit circumference in light seconds ~3,140**
Orbital velocity: 30 km/sec ~ 1/10 000 of c.**
No of digits : 10**
scattering: ~ +- 2/1000 or .2%.
* unit assigned by scientists
** units the result of natural relationships, ratios before the arrival of science.
Earth, a place just begging you to do science on.
there are more, add them please.

 

[Michael 345]

On the first planet to be confirmed to have life; -- Earth :
Distance from Star , Sun: 1 AU *
No. to fit in simplest planetary distance sequence : 10**
Orbit diameter in light seconds 1000**
Number of seconds in year 31 556 600**~ 3.14 x 10^7
Orbit circumference in light seconds ~3,140**
Orbital velocity: 30 km/sec ~ 1/10 000 of c.**
No of digits : 10**
scattering: ~ +- 2/1000 or .2%.
* unit assigned by scientists
** units the result of natural relationships, ratios before the arrival of science.
Earth, a place just begging you to do science on.
there are more, add them please.

You worked all this out by yourself?

I don't go mathematics so will leave it to those skilled at maths to check for holes

 

[origin]

You worked all this out by yourself?

I don't go mathematics so will leave it to those skilled at maths to check for holes

It is not math, it is silly numerology, so it is just a big hole.

 

[Michael 345]

It is not math, it is silly numerology, so it is just a big hole.

Agree. But I was curious if it had been copied from a book and posted without a link

 

[nebel]

Agree. But I was curious if it had been copied from a book and posted without a link

No it has not, of course it is a compilation of data that are out there of great research by others, in some cases centuries. Including the
Sea level atmospheric pressure ~ 10 meter of water.**PS: some values are actually the same thing as the 998 second orbit diameter 3,14 0 second circumference. but 30km sec ~ 1/ ioooo c just popped into view last week.
since compilation of data is a time honoured amateur astronomer endeveour, perhaps should reject it here and move it up to astronomy main?

 

[Michael 345]

honoured amateur astronomer endeveour, perhaps should reject it here and move it up to astronomy main?

Yes - the type which links stars together with straight lines and says

"Oh look it looks like a crab. And that group looks like a goat
Isn't that interesting?"

See if you can find all 12

 

[nebel]

Yes - the type which links stars together with straight lines and says

You know that is a lot of Taurus. but you have to draw the lines somewhere. Like line up the big dipper to polaris. a ine 1/2x10 to find the extension of No.1's axis of rotation.
If these 10s of 1os have nothing to do with science, are they perhaps art? decorations?

 

[gmilam]

You know that is a lot of Taurus. but you have to draw the lines somewhere. Like line up the big dipper to polaris. a ine 1/2x10 to find the extension of No.1's axis of rotation.
If these 10s of 1os have nothing to do with science, are they perhaps art? decorations?

Coincidence?

 

[Michael 345]

You know that is a lot of Taurus. but you have to draw the lines somewhere. Like line up the big dipper to polaris. a ine 1/2x10 to find the extension of No.1's axis of rotation.
If these 10s of 1os have nothing to do with science, are they perhaps art? decorations?

More to the point

Have YOU actually worked out if they are correct?

Distance from Star , Sun: 1 AU *

Of course this is correct because scientists designated it to be so

Orbit diameter in light seconds 1000**

Is this correct? how accurate?

Coincidence?

Could be but I am mildly curious as to how many line up accurately

 

[Michael 345]

If these 10s of 1os have nothing to do with science, are they perhaps art? decorations?

Science NO

Art ? NO Who would the artist be?

Decorations? Who is the decorator?

Coincidence?

I guess a possibility but again how many line up accurately and if not what margin of error would you allow?

If if if they are ALL on the button the answer would be Physics

But I doubt they are so accurate

 

[nebel]

I guess a possibility but again how many line up accurately and if not what margin of error would you allow?

Let us add another 10. the most spectacular planet to view, with another decoration, Saturn and the paper thin rings, is 10 times further out than No. 1. margin of error in all +- 5%. if you are riding a wave, that is good enough. Most within ,5%
re: decorations, the peacock, or other birds of paradise, Not directly created by some invisible law defying magician in the sky, but the extreme outworking by an evolutionary, sexdriven, genetic process. If a bird can have the extra energy, flexibility to build this, and have the acumen to evade predators despite that advertising, it will make a good marriage partner. Same with the 10, all the way to Saturn,the rings, stability, reinforced by the ratios, and a beauty to behold.
So, where were we, at 10+ tens?

 

[Michael 345]

margin of error in all +- 5%. if you are riding a wave, that is good enough. Most within ,5%

Sorry Physics does not have any margin of error
Plus have not shown your workings

Humans DO have a margin of error and frequently lie about it

Theoretical - works out a set of 10's involving Earth - gives themselves a 5% error margin - one doesn't fit (it is 6% out of the range - thinks "well 6% is close to 5% so we will put it in")

Show the workings please

Let myself and other interested posters decide if you have something

Over to you

 

[nebel]

Theoretical - works out a set of 10's involving Earth - gives themselves a 5% error margin - one doesn't fit (it is 6% out of the range - thinks "well 6% is close to 5% so we will put it in")

Of course, there is no errors in physics only corrections due to improved math, observations.
Sorry, to have said error.
These are deviations from the theoretical values. Saturn's orbit is 4.6% off the 100 bode, 10AU target. Deviation no doubt due to all the factors coming into play.
Check all the numbers yourself. After all, you might even catch me having misread Nasa's lists. ALL Bode Nos. are within
5%. (don't count in Neptune) it is in there because of the 9.6 AU ( 160 light minutes) max gap.
80% of the planetary mass, Jupiter *, is within 4/1000 of the theoretical value that has No1 as 10. with O devia
So it is beautiful physics, a decoration, you could put it on a T-shirt.
* prediction 52, measured: 5,204AU
on planets, work in AUs please saves time with the slide rule.

!!!PS: and while we are at the 10s , the 1o x further out from us, Saturn,-- it has an orbital velocity of ~ 10 km/sec -3% (3times ours) and an opposing equatorial rotational velocity of 10 km/s -3% cancelling (see thread in astronomy " Jupiter OV, RV cancel?"

 

[Michael 345]

These are deviations from the theoretical values

This just gets worse and worse. I'm sure that the list of measurements you gave are well past the stage of being "theoretical" and can be measured well within a 5% error

Since you won't, probably can't, provide coherent value details your kindergarten wonderment about 10's will remain exactly that with no hope of survival outside of your brain

Check all the numbers yourself

I don't do maths

Your claim - your responsibility to do the maths

That's my last PING on this subject

 

[nebel]

Your claim - your responsibility to do the maths

There is no complicated math to be done. the numbers are there, often with both theoretical and measured. all fall within normal scatter of 5%. where it counts within 0.4%
If in doubt. prove it. The 10 claim stands.

 

[sideshowbob]

There is no complicated math to be done. the numbers are there, often with both theoretical and measured. all fall within normal scatter of 5%. where it counts within 0.4%
If in doubt. prove it. The 10 claim stands.

If we had eight fingers like cartoon characters, you'd be able to find just as many magical relationships with 8.

 

[nebel]

If we had eight fingers like cartoon characters, you'd be able to find just as many magical relationships with 8.

perhaps, but not for the Earth, No.1, because it is already taken. but hey, give it a try!
We in french use the toes to count too. 90 is 4 twenties and ten.

 

[gmilam]

If we had eight fingers like cartoon characters, you'd be able to find just as many magical relationships with 8.

Not to mention light seconds... At some time, someone decided the break the day up into 24 hours. And then to subdivide those into 60 minutes of 60 seconds each. Totally arbitrary - nothing "natural" about that at all.

 

[sideshowbob]

We in french use the toes to count too. 90 is 4 twenties and ten.

You're making my point. Twenty could be just as magical as ten or eight. If you look hard enough, you can find relationships for any number.

 

[nebel]

You're making my point. Twenty could be just as magical as ten or eight. If you look hard enough, you can find relationships for any number.

Of course, according to your liberal standards, there are definitely 8 or multiple thereof, or fractions thereof in 2^3. but what is magic about that?
If you can not come up with a comparable score, 10/10 based on at least 1o Au, you have drawn a blanl, but I will give you a head start:
It is ~8 minutes light flying tome to the sun. have fun.